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 of the petitioner's registration, finding that the impugned order lacked application of mind and did not assign reasons, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The cancellation was not in accordance with the prescribed grounds under Section 29 of the GST Act. The petitioner's revocation application was wrongly rejected for non-submission of a reply to the show cause notice, and the subsequent appeal was dismissed without reasons. The court held that the doctrine of merger does not apply where the cancellation order is unreasoned. The limitation ground cited in rejecting the appeal was also found untenable. Consequently, the petition was allowed, reinstating the petitioner's registration.
The HC set aside the cancellation of the petitioner's registration, finding that the impugned order lacked application of mind and did not assign reasons, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The cancellation was not in accordance with the prescribed grounds under Section 29 of the GST Act. The petitioner's revocation application was wrongly rejected for non-submission of a reply to the show cause notice, and the subsequent appeal was dismissed without reasons. The court held that the doctrine of merger does not apply where the cancellation order is unreasoned. The limitation ground cited in rejecting the appeal was also found untenable. Consequently, the petition was allowed, reinstating the petitioner's registration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
