Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
HC quashed proceedings initiated under Section 129(3) of UPGST Act 2017 regarding goods intercepted without state E-way bill. While tax invoice, Central E-way bill and builty accompanied the goods, state E-way bill was absent. Following precedents in similar cases, HC held that during 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018, E-way bill requirement under UPGST Act was not enforceable. Therefore, seizure proceedings against petitioner were without jurisdiction. The impugned orders were unsustainable in law as the requirement for state E-way bill documentation had not come into force during the relevant period. Petition allowed with proceedings quashed.
HC quashed proceedings initiated under Section 129(3) of UPGST Act 2017 regarding goods intercepted without state E-way bill. While tax invoice, Central E-way bill and builty accompanied the goods, state E-way bill was absent. Following precedents in similar cases, HC held that during 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018, E-way bill requirement under UPGST Act was not enforceable. Therefore, seizure proceedings against petitioner were without jurisdiction. The impugned orders were unsustainable in law as the requirement for state E-way bill documentation had not come into force during the relevant period. Petition allowed with proceedings quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
