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 quashed the appellate authority's order rejecting petitioner's appeal as time-barred under CGST Act. Petitioner attempted filing appeal within statutory period under Section 107 but was prevented by system malfunction that rejected appeals where demanded tax was already paid. Despite petitioner's protest payment and timely filing attempt, authorities failed to address technical impediment. Court held denial of statutory remedy was attributable solely to respondents' defective system, not petitioner's conduct. Appellate authority erred in mechanically applying time limitation without considering circumstances preventing timely submission. HC directed restoration of appeal and consideration on merits, treating it as timely filed, recognizing petitioner's right to appeal remains despite tax payment under protest.
HC quashed the appellate authority's order rejecting petitioner's appeal as time-barred under CGST Act. Petitioner attempted filing appeal within statutory period under Section 107 but was prevented by system malfunction that rejected appeals where demanded tax was already paid. Despite petitioner's protest payment and timely filing attempt, authorities failed to address technical impediment. Court held denial of statutory remedy was attributable solely to respondents' defective system, not petitioner's conduct. Appellate authority erred in mechanically applying time limitation without considering circumstances preventing timely submission. HC directed restoration of appeal and consideration on merits, treating it as timely filed, recognizing petitioner's right to appeal remains despite tax payment under protest.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
