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 issued a writ of mandamus directing NOIDA to compensate the petitioner, head of a Hindu Undivided Family, Rs. 19,22,778/- within 15 days for penalties imposed under the GST Act. NOIDA had acknowledged that the petitioner's GST payment was deposited under the wrong head due to their error, not the petitioner's fault. Following the Supreme Court's principle in Batliboi that compensation should not result in windfall for one party at another's expense, the court determined the petitioner should not suffer penalties for NOIDA's administrative mistake. NOIDA must notify the District Magistrate after payment and retains the right to recover the amount from its erring officers. Petition disposed of.
The HC issued a writ of mandamus directing NOIDA to compensate the petitioner, head of a Hindu Undivided Family, Rs. 19,22,778/- within 15 days for penalties imposed under the GST Act. NOIDA had acknowledged that the petitioner's GST payment was deposited under the wrong head due to their error, not the petitioner's fault. Following the Supreme Court's principle in Batliboi that compensation should not result in windfall for one party at another's expense, the court determined the petitioner should not suffer penalties for NOIDA's administrative mistake. NOIDA must notify the District Magistrate after payment and retains the right to recover the amount from its erring officers. Petition disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
