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 petition seeking direction for processing GST refund applications filed in form GSTRFD 01 for multiple tax periods from February 2020 to March 2023. The court acknowledged that while proper officers identified deficiencies in the applications, these deficiencies were not reflected in the portal's view site, preventing the petitioner from being aware of them. Applying Section 54 of the WBGST/CGST Act 2017 and Rules 89-90 of the WBGST/CGST Rules 2017, the HC directed respondent authorities to address the portal issue with appropriate authorities. The court permitted the first petitioner to re-file refund applications for the specified periods, treating the deficiency memo as communicated on the judgment date, ensuring the petitioner would not suffer due to lack of awareness of deficiencies.
The HC disposed of a writ petition seeking direction for processing GST refund applications filed in form GSTRFD 01 for multiple tax periods from February 2020 to March 2023. The court acknowledged that while proper officers identified deficiencies in the applications, these deficiencies were not reflected in the portal's view site, preventing the petitioner from being aware of them. Applying Section 54 of the WBGST/CGST Act 2017 and Rules 89-90 of the WBGST/CGST Rules 2017, the HC directed respondent authorities to address the portal issue with appropriate authorities. The court permitted the first petitioner to re-file refund applications for the specified periods, treating the deficiency memo as communicated on the judgment date, ensuring the petitioner would not suffer due to lack of awareness of deficiencies.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
