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 the impugned SCN issued on 30th November 2024 was within the three-month limitation period prescribed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, preceding the order dated 28th February 2025. The SCN and subsequent order were therefore not time-barred or beyond jurisdiction. The Court found that the Petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to file a reply and participate in personal hearings, with only one adjournment sought and granted, and no mandatory minimum of three adjournments required under Section 75(5). Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the Petitioner was granted the right to file an appeal against the impugned order by 31st August 2025, subject to the pre-deposit under Section 107 of the CGST Act, with the appeal to be adjudicated on merits without dismissal on limitation grounds.
The HC held that the impugned SCN issued on 30th November 2024 was within the three-month limitation period prescribed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, preceding the order dated 28th February 2025. The SCN and subsequent order were therefore not time-barred or beyond jurisdiction. The Court found that the Petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to file a reply and participate in personal hearings, with only one adjournment sought and granted, and no mandatory minimum of three adjournments required under Section 75(5). Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the Petitioner was granted the right to file an appeal against the impugned order by 31st August 2025, subject to the pre-deposit under Section 107 of the CGST Act, with the appeal to be adjudicated on merits without dismissal on limitation grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
