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 dismissed the petitioner's application challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The court found no merit in the claim of non-receipt of the show cause notice, as the petitioner had responded to it, citing internal communication issues. The impugned order was issued after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard in compliance with the proviso to Section 29(2) of the CGST/BGST Act. The petitioner failed to file pending returns and pay admitted tax before the order dated 03.07.2020, which constituted a valid ground for cancellation under Section 29(2)(c). The court distinguished precedents cited by the petitioner, noting that in this case, reasons were duly provided and the petitioner was not denied a hearing. Consequently, the court upheld the validity of the cancellation order and dismissed the petitioner's challenge.
The HC dismissed the petitioner's application challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The court found no merit in the claim of non-receipt of the show cause notice, as the petitioner had responded to it, citing internal communication issues. The impugned order was issued after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard in compliance with the proviso to Section 29(2) of the CGST/BGST Act. The petitioner failed to file pending returns and pay admitted tax before the order dated 03.07.2020, which constituted a valid ground for cancellation under Section 29(2)(c). The court distinguished precedents cited by the petitioner, noting that in this case, reasons were duly provided and the petitioner was not denied a hearing. Consequently, the court upheld the validity of the cancellation order and dismissed the petitioner's challenge.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
