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 cancellation order dated 6th August 2024 and the subsequent appellate order dated 21st March 2025, restoring the petitioner's registration. The court found that while registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns, there was no evidence of dubious tax evasion practices. Emphasizing that suspension would be counterproductive to revenue interests as it prevents business operations and tax recovery, the court adopted a pragmatic approach. The restoration was granted conditionally, requiring the petitioner to file all outstanding returns for the default period and pay requisite taxes, interest, fines, and penalties. The court noted that respondents cannot determine final liability without filed returns, making restoration essential for proper tax administration.
The HC set aside the cancellation order dated 6th August 2024 and the subsequent appellate order dated 21st March 2025, restoring the petitioner's registration. The court found that while registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns, there was no evidence of dubious tax evasion practices. Emphasizing that suspension would be counterproductive to revenue interests as it prevents business operations and tax recovery, the court adopted a pragmatic approach. The restoration was granted conditionally, requiring the petitioner to file all outstanding returns for the default period and pay requisite taxes, interest, fines, and penalties. The court noted that respondents cannot determine final liability without filed returns, making restoration essential for proper tax administration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
