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 demand orders and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority due to violation of natural justice principles. The Court held that the SCN, issued prior to changes in the GST portal making the 'Additional Notices Tab' visible, was not properly communicated to the Petitioner, depriving them of a fair opportunity to respond. Consequently, no reply was filed by the Petitioner. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration, allowing the Petitioner thirty days to file a reply to the SCN, ensuring compliance with procedural fairness. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
The HC set aside the impugned demand orders and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority due to violation of natural justice principles. The Court held that the SCN, issued prior to changes in the GST portal making the 'Additional Notices Tab' visible, was not properly communicated to the Petitioner, depriving them of a fair opportunity to respond. Consequently, no reply was filed by the Petitioner. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration, allowing the Petitioner thirty days to file a reply to the SCN, ensuring compliance with procedural fairness. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.