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...
Proceedings initiated under section 130 read with section 122 of the GST Act based solely on excess stock found during a survey, without actual verification or weightment, are impermissible. The HC held that the GST Act provides a specific mechanism under sections 73/74 for dealing with unrecorded goods, and thus section 130 cannot be invoked in such circumstances. Precedents from this HC and the SC affirm that excess stock discovered at survey does not warrant initiation of proceedings under section 130. Consequently, the impugned orders issued on this basis were quashed, and the petition was allowed, confirming that section 130 proceedings cannot be employed for excess stock findings during a survey.
Proceedings initiated under section 130 read with section 122 of the GST Act based solely on excess stock found during a survey, without actual verification or weightment, are impermissible. The HC held that the GST Act provides a specific mechanism under sections 73/74 for dealing with unrecorded goods, and thus section 130 cannot be invoked in such circumstances. Precedents from this HC and the SC affirm that excess stock discovered at survey does not warrant initiation of proceedings under section 130. Consequently, the impugned orders issued on this basis were quashed, and the petition was allowed, confirming that section 130 proceedings cannot be employed for excess stock findings during a survey.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
