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 the adjudication and summary orders for failure to consider the petitioner's annual returns for 2018-19 and 2019-20, relying solely on GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The court held that the respondents were obligated to evaluate the annual returns, reconcile ITC claims across years, and account for ITC reversals via DRC-03. The impugned order, premised on an alleged excess ITC claim without such comprehensive analysis, was unsustainable. The matter involved factual determinations requiring reappraisal and was accordingly remitted to respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration at the stage of replying to the show cause notice. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
The HC quashed the adjudication and summary orders for failure to consider the petitioner's annual returns for 2018-19 and 2019-20, relying solely on GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The court held that the respondents were obligated to evaluate the annual returns, reconcile ITC claims across years, and account for ITC reversals via DRC-03. The impugned order, premised on an alleged excess ITC claim without such comprehensive analysis, was unsustainable. The matter involved factual determinations requiring reappraisal and was accordingly remitted to respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration at the stage of replying to the show cause notice. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
