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 quashed a notice issued under Section 79(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on procedural grounds. The notice was improperly addressed to the Branch Manager of the respondent-bank at Gurugram rather than to the petitioner directly. The petitioner contended that no bank account existed at Gurugram, with the relevant account being at Mulund Branch, and denied owing any amount to the defaulter allegedly liable for Rs. 30.19 crores GST dues. The HC held that Section 79 mandates service of notice upon the person from whom money is due to enable them to prove no liability exists. Since no notice was served upon the petitioner, the impugned notice dated 9 July 2024 was set aside and the petition was allowed.
The HC quashed a notice issued under Section 79(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on procedural grounds. The notice was improperly addressed to the Branch Manager of the respondent-bank at Gurugram rather than to the petitioner directly. The petitioner contended that no bank account existed at Gurugram, with the relevant account being at Mulund Branch, and denied owing any amount to the defaulter allegedly liable for Rs. 30.19 crores GST dues. The HC held that Section 79 mandates service of notice upon the person from whom money is due to enable them to prove no liability exists. Since no notice was served upon the petitioner, the impugned notice dated 9 July 2024 was set aside and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
