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 held that the petitioner was entitled to Input Tax Credit (ITC) despite the seller's GST registration being canceled retrospectively. Since the transaction occurred on 06.12.2018 when the seller was validly registered, and the cancellation took effect from 29.01.2020, no adverse inference could be drawn against the petitioner. The Court emphasized that under Sections 16 and 74 of the GST Act and Rule 36 of GST Rules, ITC eligibility depends on conditions fulfilled at the time of transaction. The authorities failed to verify GSTR-1A, GSTR-3B, and tax deposits by the seller. The petition was allowed, and the matter remanded for fresh consideration with a reasoned order after hearing all stakeholders.
The HC held that the petitioner was entitled to Input Tax Credit (ITC) despite the seller's GST registration being canceled retrospectively. Since the transaction occurred on 06.12.2018 when the seller was validly registered, and the cancellation took effect from 29.01.2020, no adverse inference could be drawn against the petitioner. The Court emphasized that under Sections 16 and 74 of the GST Act and Rule 36 of GST Rules, ITC eligibility depends on conditions fulfilled at the time of transaction. The authorities failed to verify GSTR-1A, GSTR-3B, and tax deposits by the seller. The petition was allowed, and the matter remanded for fresh consideration with a reasoned order after hearing all stakeholders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
