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 since the entire tax liability was discharged through the electronic credit ledger before any intimation or show-cause notice, and there was no wilful mis-statement or suppression by the petitioner, the provisions of Sec. 74 of the GST Act are inapplicable. The petitioner's failure to offset the tax liability from the credit ledger was inadvertent and not indicative of fraud. Consequently, the HC directed the respondent AO to pass a fresh de novo order under Sec. 73 of the GST Act, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within three months from receipt of the order. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
The HC held that since the entire tax liability was discharged through the electronic credit ledger before any intimation or show-cause notice, and there was no wilful mis-statement or suppression by the petitioner, the provisions of Sec. 74 of the GST Act are inapplicable. The petitioner's failure to offset the tax liability from the credit ledger was inadvertent and not indicative of fraud. Consequently, the HC directed the respondent AO to pass a fresh de novo order under Sec. 73 of the GST Act, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within three months from receipt of the order. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
