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 ex-parte order due to non-compliance with Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, 2017, and violation of natural justice principles. Although electronic service of notice under the GST regime is generally upheld, the Court found the procedural irregularity and lack of a reasonable opportunity to be heard prejudicial in the present case. Considering the nature of the business and substantive rights involved, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Authority for issuance of a fresh notice under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act. The petitioner is directed to appear and effectively participate in the proceedings on the specified date. The petition was allowed by way of remand to ensure fairness and adherence to due process.
The HC set aside the impugned ex-parte order due to non-compliance with Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, 2017, and violation of natural justice principles. Although electronic service of notice under the GST regime is generally upheld, the Court found the procedural irregularity and lack of a reasonable opportunity to be heard prejudicial in the present case. Considering the nature of the business and substantive rights involved, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Authority for issuance of a fresh notice under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act. The petitioner is directed to appear and effectively participate in the proceedings on the specified date. The petition was allowed by way of remand to ensure fairness and adherence to due process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
