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 service of the order under section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 was proper, having been uploaded on the portal and communicated via email. Although the petitioner's explanation for preferring the appeal was not fully satisfactory, the court accepted the partial explanation and, considering the absence of a constituted appellate tribunal, directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount within three weeks, in addition to the amount already paid. Upon such deposit, the appellate authority was mandated to hear and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. Consequently, the HC set aside the appellate order dated 23 September 2024 and any consequential demand raised in Form GST APL-04, disposing of the petition accordingly.
The HC held that the service of the order under section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 was proper, having been uploaded on the portal and communicated via email. Although the petitioner's explanation for preferring the appeal was not fully satisfactory, the court accepted the partial explanation and, considering the absence of a constituted appellate tribunal, directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount within three weeks, in addition to the amount already paid. Upon such deposit, the appellate authority was mandated to hear and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. Consequently, the HC set aside the appellate order dated 23 September 2024 and any consequential demand raised in Form GST APL-04, disposing of the petition accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
