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 determined that mere non-completion of part-B of e-way bill does not automatically warrant penalty under Section 129 of U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017. The court found no evidence of tax evasion attempt by the petitioner. Without a specific finding regarding intentional tax evasion, the penalty levy was deemed unsustainable. Consistent with prior judicial precedents, the court emphasized that procedural non-compliance alone cannot justify punitive action. The impugned order was consequently set aside, and the petition was allowed, effectively quashing the penalty imposed by the tax authorities.
HC determined that mere non-completion of part-B of e-way bill does not automatically warrant penalty under Section 129 of U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017. The court found no evidence of tax evasion attempt by the petitioner. Without a specific finding regarding intentional tax evasion, the penalty levy was deemed unsustainable. Consistent with prior judicial precedents, the court emphasized that procedural non-compliance alone cannot justify punitive action. The impugned order was consequently set aside, and the petition was allowed, effectively quashing the penalty imposed by the tax authorities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.