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 impugned adjudication order and related summary order demanding GST payment from the petitioner under an unregistered Joint Development Agreement (JDA). The Court held that the JDA did not effectuate any transfer or assignment of rights by the petitioner to the developer. Since the developer, a registered person, had already discharged the entire GST liability for 100% of the property, including the petitioner's 30% share, the issue of double taxation did not arise. The respondent was estopped from contradicting the prior acceptance by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes that the developer was liable to pay GST under the JDA. Consequently, the demand for GST from the petitioner was unjustified, and the petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned orders.
The HC quashed the impugned adjudication order and related summary order demanding GST payment from the petitioner under an unregistered Joint Development Agreement (JDA). The Court held that the JDA did not effectuate any transfer or assignment of rights by the petitioner to the developer. Since the developer, a registered person, had already discharged the entire GST liability for 100% of the property, including the petitioner's 30% share, the issue of double taxation did not arise. The respondent was estopped from contradicting the prior acceptance by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes that the developer was liable to pay GST under the JDA. Consequently, the demand for GST from the petitioner was unjustified, and the petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
