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 held that mentioning SAP document number instead of tax invoice number in e-way bill during transport from Mathura to Mirzapur was a genuine human error. Physical verification revealed no discrepancies in quality, quantity, or goods description between tax invoice and actual shipment. Authorities failed to establish any intention of tax evasion, which is essential for penalty imposition under Section 129 of GST Act. The technical mismatch alone cannot justify penalty proceedings when substantive compliance is evident. The court found impugned orders unsustainable, emphasizing that mere clerical errors, absent fraudulent intent, do not warrant punitive action. Petition allowed, setting aside tax and penalty orders.
HC held that mentioning SAP document number instead of tax invoice number in e-way bill during transport from Mathura to Mirzapur was a genuine human error. Physical verification revealed no discrepancies in quality, quantity, or goods description between tax invoice and actual shipment. Authorities failed to establish any intention of tax evasion, which is essential for penalty imposition under Section 129 of GST Act. The technical mismatch alone cannot justify penalty proceedings when substantive compliance is evident. The court found impugned orders unsustainable, emphasizing that mere clerical errors, absent fraudulent intent, do not warrant punitive action. Petition allowed, setting aside tax and penalty orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.