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 set aside the cancellation of petitioner's GST registration, finding that authorities failed to follow proper procedural requirements. The appellate authority had rejected the appeal solely because the HSN/SAC code disclosure in registration applications suggested two registrations covered the same business. However, the court determined that authorities did not establish any violations under Rule 21 of the GST Act, which prescribes specific conditions for registration cancellation. The revenue department also failed to demonstrate that petitioner obtained registration by breaching conditions under Section 29(2) read with Rule 21. The court directed immediate restoration of the petitioner's GST registration upon presentation of the order.
The HC set aside the cancellation of petitioner's GST registration, finding that authorities failed to follow proper procedural requirements. The appellate authority had rejected the appeal solely because the HSN/SAC code disclosure in registration applications suggested two registrations covered the same business. However, the court determined that authorities did not establish any violations under Rule 21 of the GST Act, which prescribes specific conditions for registration cancellation. The revenue department also failed to demonstrate that petitioner obtained registration by breaching conditions under Section 29(2) read with Rule 21. The court directed immediate restoration of the petitioner's GST registration upon presentation of the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
