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 by sale and transfer of leasehold rights of industrial plots allotted by a government agency constitutes transfer of benefits arising from immovable property and not supply of services. Consequently, Section 7(1)(a) of the Act, along with Clause 5(b) of Schedule 2 and Clause 5 of Schedule 3, does not apply, and such transactions are not subject to GST levy under Section 9. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2024 issued under Section 74 in Form GST DRC-07, thereby allowing the petition. This decision aligns with prior rulings, including the setting aside of a show cause notice dated 03.08.2024, confirming that the transaction falls outside the ambit of taxable supply under GST law.
The HC held that the assignment by sale and transfer of leasehold rights of industrial plots allotted by a government agency constitutes transfer of benefits arising from immovable property and not supply of services. Consequently, Section 7(1)(a) of the Act, along with Clause 5(b) of Schedule 2 and Clause 5 of Schedule 3, does not apply, and such transactions are not subject to GST levy under Section 9. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2024 issued under Section 74 in Form GST DRC-07, thereby allowing the petition. This decision aligns with prior rulings, including the setting aside of a show cause notice dated 03.08.2024, confirming that the transaction falls outside the ambit of taxable supply under GST law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
