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 petitioner was entitled to the CGST refund despite citation of an incorrect provision or typographical errors in the refund application forms. Such technical defects cannot justify rejection of the substantive claim. The appellate authority erred in law by dismissing the refund on this ground without adjudicating the claim on merits. Further, the adverse finding against the petitioner for failure to adduce evidence was passed without issuing a proper show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed, and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority for fresh determination in accordance with the observations. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
The HC held that the petitioner was entitled to the CGST refund despite citation of an incorrect provision or typographical errors in the refund application forms. Such technical defects cannot justify rejection of the substantive claim. The appellate authority erred in law by dismissing the refund on this ground without adjudicating the claim on merits. Further, the adverse finding against the petitioner for failure to adduce evidence was passed without issuing a proper show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed, and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority for fresh determination in accordance with the observations. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.