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 dismissed a writ petition challenging the interpretation of Rule 3 of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Appointment and Conditions of Services of President and Members) Rules, 2023. The petitioner contested the reconstituted Search-cum-Selection Committee's decision to restart the appointment process de novo after some members demitted office. The HC held that Rule 3 does not expressly restrict the reconstituted Committee's procedures, and the phrase "as it may deem fit" must be construed pragmatically to achieve the statutory objective. The Court found no illegality in the Committee's decision to scrutinize applications afresh based on Intelligence Bureau inputs, emphasizing that appointments to judicial positions require high integrity and suitability standards.
The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging the interpretation of Rule 3 of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Appointment and Conditions of Services of President and Members) Rules, 2023. The petitioner contested the reconstituted Search-cum-Selection Committee's decision to restart the appointment process de novo after some members demitted office. The HC held that Rule 3 does not expressly restrict the reconstituted Committee's procedures, and the phrase "as it may deem fit" must be construed pragmatically to achieve the statutory objective. The Court found no illegality in the Committee's decision to scrutinize applications afresh based on Intelligence Bureau inputs, emphasizing that appointments to judicial positions require high integrity and suitability standards.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
