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 set aside and quashed the Appellate Authority's order dated 24.01.2023 rejecting Petitioner's refund claim for unutilized input tax credit under Section 54(3) of CGST Act and WBGST Act. The Appellate Authority improperly rejected additional documents including shipping bills without providing cogent reasons regarding their relevancy or admissibility. HC held that Rule 112(4) of CGST Rules empowers the Appellate Authority to admit additional evidence for effective adjudication. The Authority failed to exercise discretion judiciously by refusing to consider crucial evidentiary records submitted during appellate proceedings. Respondents failed to demonstrate that submitted documents were irrelevant or inadmissible for just adjudication. Petition disposed off favorably.
HC set aside and quashed the Appellate Authority's order dated 24.01.2023 rejecting Petitioner's refund claim for unutilized input tax credit under Section 54(3) of CGST Act and WBGST Act. The Appellate Authority improperly rejected additional documents including shipping bills without providing cogent reasons regarding their relevancy or admissibility. HC held that Rule 112(4) of CGST Rules empowers the Appellate Authority to admit additional evidence for effective adjudication. The Authority failed to exercise discretion judiciously by refusing to consider crucial evidentiary records submitted during appellate proceedings. Respondents failed to demonstrate that submitted documents were irrelevant or inadmissible for just adjudication. Petition disposed off favorably.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
