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 upheld the levy of penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the GST Act for transit of goods without an e-way bill, finding no evidence of technical error or inadvertence, as no e-way bill was generated prior to movement. The presence of a tax invoice with the goods established the petitioner as the owner, and the temporary suspension of the purchaser's registration during transit did not adversely affect liability. The Court relied on precedent attributing an intent to evade tax in absence of an e-way bill at inspection, validating the penalty order. However, the Court modified the impugned orders, directing that proceedings be treated under Section 129(1)(a) instead of 129(1)(b), as the requisite documents accompanied the consignment. The writ petition was allowed in part, with no further interference to the penalty order.
The HC upheld the levy of penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the GST Act for transit of goods without an e-way bill, finding no evidence of technical error or inadvertence, as no e-way bill was generated prior to movement. The presence of a tax invoice with the goods established the petitioner as the owner, and the temporary suspension of the purchaser's registration during transit did not adversely affect liability. The Court relied on precedent attributing an intent to evade tax in absence of an e-way bill at inspection, validating the penalty order. However, the Court modified the impugned orders, directing that proceedings be treated under Section 129(1)(a) instead of 129(1)(b), as the requisite documents accompanied the consignment. The writ petition was allowed in part, with no further interference to the penalty order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
