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 allowed the writ petition concerning GST penalty under Section 129. The petitioner had violated prescribed conditions but had voluntarily paid the penalty and successfully exported goods. The court determined that while the petitioner was liable for proceedings under Section 129, a lesser penalty was justified. The HC held that export incentives cannot be denied for technical and venial breaches, citing precedent that such minor violations should not result in denial of legitimate benefits. Despite availability of alternate appellate remedy under Section 107, the court exercised jurisdiction to prevent unnecessary litigation. The respondents were directed to appropriate Rs. 25,000 from the amount already paid by petitioner and allow adjustment of the balance against future tax liability.
The HC allowed the writ petition concerning GST penalty under Section 129. The petitioner had violated prescribed conditions but had voluntarily paid the penalty and successfully exported goods. The court determined that while the petitioner was liable for proceedings under Section 129, a lesser penalty was justified. The HC held that export incentives cannot be denied for technical and venial breaches, citing precedent that such minor violations should not result in denial of legitimate benefits. Despite availability of alternate appellate remedy under Section 107, the court exercised jurisdiction to prevent unnecessary litigation. The respondents were directed to appropriate Rs. 25,000 from the amount already paid by petitioner and allow adjustment of the balance against future tax liability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
