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 disposed of a writ application challenging an ex-parte assessment order for violation of natural justice principles covering the period 01.10.2018 to 31.03.2019. Following precedent established in a coordinate bench decision, the court directed that upon payment of ten percent of the disputed tax amount, the petitioner would be entitled to stay of recovery until GST Tribunals are constituted and an appeal is filed within the prescribed timeframe. Both parties agreed that the substantive issues could be agitated before the Tribunal once established. The court noted that while pre-deposit requirements had been reduced to ten percent, this reduction was only effective from 01.11.2024, and GST Tribunals remained unconstituted with no possibility of filing appeals before that date. The application was disposed of accordingly.
The HC disposed of a writ application challenging an ex-parte assessment order for violation of natural justice principles covering the period 01.10.2018 to 31.03.2019. Following precedent established in a coordinate bench decision, the court directed that upon payment of ten percent of the disputed tax amount, the petitioner would be entitled to stay of recovery until GST Tribunals are constituted and an appeal is filed within the prescribed timeframe. Both parties agreed that the substantive issues could be agitated before the Tribunal once established. The court noted that while pre-deposit requirements had been reduced to ten percent, this reduction was only effective from 01.11.2024, and GST Tribunals remained unconstituted with no possibility of filing appeals before that date. The application was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
