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...
During a factory premises survey, discrepancies in raw material and semi-finished product inventory led to confiscation proceedings under s.130 read with s.122 of the GST Act. The HC ruled that when stock discrepancies are discovered during a survey of a registered dealer, authorities must initiate proceedings under s.73/74 of the GST Act rather than s.130. Following established precedents, the HC determined the respondent's orders dated 16.04.2024 and 23.11.2019 were legally unsustainable. The HC emphasized that inventory irregularities discovered during routine surveys warrant assessment proceedings under s.73/74 rather than the more severe confiscation provisions under s.130. Petition allowed, impugned orders set aside.
During a factory premises survey, discrepancies in raw material and semi-finished product inventory led to confiscation proceedings under s.130 read with s.122 of the GST Act. The HC ruled that when stock discrepancies are discovered during a survey of a registered dealer, authorities must initiate proceedings under s.73/74 of the GST Act rather than s.130. Following established precedents, the HC determined the respondent's orders dated 16.04.2024 and 23.11.2019 were legally unsustainable. The HC emphasized that inventory irregularities discovered during routine surveys warrant assessment proceedings under s.73/74 rather than the more severe confiscation provisions under s.130. Petition allowed, impugned orders set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
