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 writ petition, holding that notwithstanding procedural objections including alleged violation of natural justice, an unreasoned and unsigned order and breaches of Rule 26(3) and Rule 142(1) of the BGST/CGST Rules, the impugned order emanated from the petitioner's unequivocal admission of wrongfully availing and utilising input tax credit for 2017-18. The court found no substantive prejudice requiring judicial interference: the petitioner had filed a reply and no mandatory personal hearing omission vitiated the outcome. The Proper Officer merely raised a demand for interest under s.50(3) of the BGST Act, 2017; no penalty was imposed. Exercise of writ jurisdiction was declined and the petition was dismissed.
The HC dismissed the writ petition, holding that notwithstanding procedural objections including alleged violation of natural justice, an unreasoned and unsigned order and breaches of Rule 26(3) and Rule 142(1) of the BGST/CGST Rules, the impugned order emanated from the petitioner's unequivocal admission of wrongfully availing and utilising input tax credit for 2017-18. The court found no substantive prejudice requiring judicial interference: the petitioner had filed a reply and no mandatory personal hearing omission vitiated the outcome. The Proper Officer merely raised a demand for interest under s.50(3) of the BGST Act, 2017; no penalty was imposed. Exercise of writ jurisdiction was declined and the petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
