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 set aside GST order due to procedural defects in show cause notice (SCN) issuance. Court held that merely attaching tax determination details to SCN summary in Form GST DRC-01 does not constitute valid proceedings under Section 73. A proper SCN must specifically detail reasons for action and allow adequate opportunity for representation. Additionally, violation of Section 75(4) occurred as petitioner was denied requested hearing opportunity. Court found authentication requirements under Rule 26(3) were not met. While quashing impugned order dated 28.04.2024, HC granted liberty to authorities to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 73 for relevant financial year if warranted.
HC set aside GST order due to procedural defects in show cause notice (SCN) issuance. Court held that merely attaching tax determination details to SCN summary in Form GST DRC-01 does not constitute valid proceedings under Section 73. A proper SCN must specifically detail reasons for action and allow adequate opportunity for representation. Additionally, violation of Section 75(4) occurred as petitioner was denied requested hearing opportunity. Court found authentication requirements under Rule 26(3) were not met. While quashing impugned order dated 28.04.2024, HC granted liberty to authorities to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 73 for relevant financial year if warranted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
