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 held that the penalty imposed under Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, for reversal of ITC due to mismatched returns was improperly determined without regard to relevant factors and applicable Circulars. The Tribunal erred by relying on an outdated Circular, failing to consider the subsequent Circular No.5/2021 issued pursuant to this Court's directive mandating a mechanism for return reconciliation. As the assessment and first appellate orders predated these developments, the HC found merit in remanding the matter to the assessing authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with the latest Circular. The question of law was resolved in favor of the State, endorsing the remand for reassessment consistent with current procedural guidelines.
The HC held that the penalty imposed under Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, for reversal of ITC due to mismatched returns was improperly determined without regard to relevant factors and applicable Circulars. The Tribunal erred by relying on an outdated Circular, failing to consider the subsequent Circular No.5/2021 issued pursuant to this Court's directive mandating a mechanism for return reconciliation. As the assessment and first appellate orders predated these developments, the HC found merit in remanding the matter to the assessing authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with the latest Circular. The question of law was resolved in favor of the State, endorsing the remand for reassessment consistent with current procedural guidelines.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
