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 impugned order dated 19.12.2023, finding violations of natural justice principles and statutory requirements. The court held that the Proper Officer failed to issue a valid show cause notice under Section 73, as the summary in GST DRC-01 cannot substitute for a proper SCN. The determination of tax and attached order were deemed invalid due to lack of proper authentication by the Proper Officer, creating a regulatory gap requiring digital or e-signature authentication under Rule 26(3). The court found the order contravened Section 75(4) by denying reasonable opportunity of hearing, as the DRC-01 summary left hearing date fields blank and failed to provide personal hearing opportunity despite no reply submission. The petition was allowed.
The HC set aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2023, finding violations of natural justice principles and statutory requirements. The court held that the Proper Officer failed to issue a valid show cause notice under Section 73, as the summary in GST DRC-01 cannot substitute for a proper SCN. The determination of tax and attached order were deemed invalid due to lack of proper authentication by the Proper Officer, creating a regulatory gap requiring digital or e-signature authentication under Rule 26(3). The court found the order contravened Section 75(4) by denying reasonable opportunity of hearing, as the DRC-01 summary left hearing date fields blank and failed to provide personal hearing opportunity despite no reply submission. The petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
