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 set aside the respondent's assessment order dated 06.02.2025 for violating principles of natural justice. Although the show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal, the petitioner claimed non-awareness and lack of personal hearing opportunity. The Court held that while portal service is sufficient, the officer should have explored alternative service modes under Section 169 of the GST Act when no response was received, rather than merely fulfilling empty formalities. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration conditioned upon petitioner paying 25% of disputed tax amount within four weeks. The order's setting aside takes effect from payment date. Petition disposed through remand.
The HC set aside the respondent's assessment order dated 06.02.2025 for violating principles of natural justice. Although the show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal, the petitioner claimed non-awareness and lack of personal hearing opportunity. The Court held that while portal service is sufficient, the officer should have explored alternative service modes under Section 169 of the GST Act when no response was received, rather than merely fulfilling empty formalities. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration conditioned upon petitioner paying 25% of disputed tax amount within four weeks. The order's setting aside takes effect from payment date. Petition disposed through remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
