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...
The HC addressed a challenge to a summons issued under s.70 of the GST Act seeking information from the petitioner. The court clarified that s.74 of the CGST Act applies to tax evasion cases involving willful misstatement or fraud, permitting penalties up to 100% of unpaid tax, with reduced penalties available at various stages of admission and payment. The court determined that the 2nd respondent's communication aligned with s.74 provisions and did not create liability or initiate proceedings against the petitioner. The petition was closed, preserving the petitioner's right to oppose any future proceedings for tax short payment, evasion, or wrongful ITC availment.
The HC addressed a challenge to a summons issued under s.70 of the GST Act seeking information from the petitioner. The court clarified that s.74 of the CGST Act applies to tax evasion cases involving willful misstatement or fraud, permitting penalties up to 100% of unpaid tax, with reduced penalties available at various stages of admission and payment. The court determined that the 2nd respondent's communication aligned with s.74 provisions and did not create liability or initiate proceedings against the petitioner. The petition was closed, preserving the petitioner's right to oppose any future proceedings for tax short payment, evasion, or wrongful ITC availment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
