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 assignment of leasehold rights by the petitioner constitutes a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property and does not amount to a supply of service under Section 7(1)(a) of the Act. Consequently, such transactions fall outside the scope of GST levy under Section 9, as clarified by Clauses 5(b) of Schedule 2 and 5 of Schedule 3 of the Act. The impugned order passed under Section 74 was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed, confirming that GST is not applicable on the assignment of leasehold rights in this context.
The HC held that the assignment of leasehold rights by the petitioner constitutes a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property and does not amount to a supply of service under Section 7(1)(a) of the Act. Consequently, such transactions fall outside the scope of GST levy under Section 9, as clarified by Clauses 5(b) of Schedule 2 and 5 of Schedule 3 of the Act. The impugned order passed under Section 74 was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed, confirming that GST is not applicable on the assignment of leasehold rights in this context.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.