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 rejected the respondents' contention regarding time-barred appeal and held the cancellation of GST registration invalid due to non-application of mind and violation of natural justice principles. The court found that the quasi-judicial authority failed to consider the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, rendering the cancellation order non-speaking and legally infirm. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 11.08.2022, 12.09.2022, 22.08.2024, and 03.09.2024 were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Superintendent, Danapur, for fresh adjudication, directing a thorough consideration of the petitioner's contentions and completion of proceedings within three months from receipt of the order. The petition was allowed by way of remand, ensuring adherence to procedural fairness and statutory requirements.
The HC rejected the respondents' contention regarding time-barred appeal and held the cancellation of GST registration invalid due to non-application of mind and violation of natural justice principles. The court found that the quasi-judicial authority failed to consider the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, rendering the cancellation order non-speaking and legally infirm. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 11.08.2022, 12.09.2022, 22.08.2024, and 03.09.2024 were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Superintendent, Danapur, for fresh adjudication, directing a thorough consideration of the petitioner's contentions and completion of proceedings within three months from receipt of the order. The petition was allowed by way of remand, ensuring adherence to procedural fairness and statutory requirements.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
