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 dismissed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 74(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 for alleged willful suppression or fraud in tax payment. The petitioner contended that Section 74 was inapplicable as the mistake was rectified through returns and reconciliation statements before proceedings commenced, and argued that the show-cause notice failed to specify circumstances warranting Section 74 invocation. The HC held that since the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the petitioner must exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the court in writ jurisdiction. The petition was disposed of without considering merits, directing the petitioner to pursue available statutory appellate remedies instead of seeking extraordinary writ relief.
The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 74(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 for alleged willful suppression or fraud in tax payment. The petitioner contended that Section 74 was inapplicable as the mistake was rectified through returns and reconciliation statements before proceedings commenced, and argued that the show-cause notice failed to specify circumstances warranting Section 74 invocation. The HC held that since the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the petitioner must exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the court in writ jurisdiction. The petition was disposed of without considering merits, directing the petitioner to pursue available statutory appellate remedies instead of seeking extraordinary writ relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
