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 quashed and set aside the impugned order of tax and penalty levy under Sec. 129(3) of the GST Act due to a flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. The respondent authorities passed the order on the same day as the interception of goods without granting the petitioner adequate opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice, despite the statutory seven-day period for such orders. The court declined to examine the merits of the levy, focusing solely on procedural impropriety. The matter was remanded to the respondent authorities for reconsideration and to afford the petitioner a proper hearing. The petition was allowed accordingly.
The HC quashed and set aside the impugned order of tax and penalty levy under Sec. 129(3) of the GST Act due to a flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. The respondent authorities passed the order on the same day as the interception of goods without granting the petitioner adequate opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice, despite the statutory seven-day period for such orders. The court declined to examine the merits of the levy, focusing solely on procedural impropriety. The matter was remanded to the respondent authorities for reconsideration and to afford the petitioner a proper hearing. The petition was allowed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
