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 AAR ruled that goods supplied by the applicant, despite being a victim of fraud without receiving consideration, still constituted a "supply" under GST law. The authority determined that while fraud may vitiate a contract, it does not negate the statutory definition of "supply" under section 7 of the CGST Act. The facts established that goods were physically removed and received at the destination, as confirmed by the FIR. The AAR concluded that the transaction qualified as supply of goods under section 20 of the IGST Act read with sections 12 and 7 of the CGST Act, regardless of the fraudulent nature of the order.
The AAR ruled that goods supplied by the applicant, despite being a victim of fraud without receiving consideration, still constituted a "supply" under GST law. The authority determined that while fraud may vitiate a contract, it does not negate the statutory definition of "supply" under section 7 of the CGST Act. The facts established that goods were physically removed and received at the destination, as confirmed by the FIR. The AAR concluded that the transaction qualified as supply of goods under section 20 of the IGST Act read with sections 12 and 7 of the CGST Act, regardless of the fraudulent nature of the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
