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 declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in a case involving allegations of fraudulent availment of ITC amounting to approximately Rs. 63.83 crores by 23 fake firms. Citing precedent, the Court held that writ petitions challenging such allegations are ordinarily not maintainable due to the significant impact on the GST regime and the exchequer. Although the petitioner raised procedural grievances regarding notice and consideration of submissions, the Court noted appearances by some parties and found no infirmity warranting interference. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, by 31 August 2025, with the requisite pre-deposit, which shall be admitted and heard on merits without dismissal on limitation grounds. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
The HC declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in a case involving allegations of fraudulent availment of ITC amounting to approximately Rs. 63.83 crores by 23 fake firms. Citing precedent, the Court held that writ petitions challenging such allegations are ordinarily not maintainable due to the significant impact on the GST regime and the exchequer. Although the petitioner raised procedural grievances regarding notice and consideration of submissions, the Court noted appearances by some parties and found no infirmity warranting interference. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, by 31 August 2025, with the requisite pre-deposit, which shall be admitted and heard on merits without dismissal on limitation grounds. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
