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...
HC held that GST registration license cancellation was improper due to procedural irregularities. The visit note by the CGST Superintendent lacked corroborative evidence, as no additional witnesses were present during the physical verification. The officer failed to record statements from nearby shop owners and obtain their signatures, rendering the verification process fundamentally flawed. The subsequent administrative orders at different levels were found unsustainable, primarily because the initial verification was conducted without proper protocol. The court emphasized the importance of following Rule 25 of GST Rules 2017, which mandates comprehensive documentation and witness verification during business premise inspections. Consequently, the petitioner's license cancellation was quashed, and the administrative orders were set aside.
HC held that GST registration license cancellation was improper due to procedural irregularities. The visit note by the CGST Superintendent lacked corroborative evidence, as no additional witnesses were present during the physical verification. The officer failed to record statements from nearby shop owners and obtain their signatures, rendering the verification process fundamentally flawed. The subsequent administrative orders at different levels were found unsustainable, primarily because the initial verification was conducted without proper protocol. The court emphasized the importance of following Rule 25 of GST Rules 2017, which mandates comprehensive documentation and witness verification during business premise inspections. Consequently, the petitioner's license cancellation was quashed, and the administrative orders were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
