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 initiation of proceedings under Section 73/74 of the GST Act for tax determination based solely on the discrepancy between turnover declared in the E-way bill and Form GSTR-9, absent any allegation of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression, is impermissible. The respondent authority lacked jurisdiction to proceed under Section 73/74 without evidence of such misconduct. Furthermore, initiation under Section 74 requires a prima facie finding of fraud or suppression after preliminary investigation, which was not established. The impugned show-cause notice dated 27.12.2023, the consequential Order-in-Original dated 10.03.2024, and subsequent orders were quashed and set aside for violation of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction. The petition was allowed accordingly.
The HC held that initiation of proceedings under Section 73/74 of the GST Act for tax determination based solely on the discrepancy between turnover declared in the E-way bill and Form GSTR-9, absent any allegation of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression, is impermissible. The respondent authority lacked jurisdiction to proceed under Section 73/74 without evidence of such misconduct. Furthermore, initiation under Section 74 requires a prima facie finding of fraud or suppression after preliminary investigation, which was not established. The impugned show-cause notice dated 27.12.2023, the consequential Order-in-Original dated 10.03.2024, and subsequent orders were quashed and set aside for violation of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction. The petition was allowed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
