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 writ petition for relief against an adjudication order under the GST Act, holding the challenge barred by delay and laches. The court found the petitioner failed to explain an approximately 11-month delay in seeking writ relief against an order dated 21 August 2024 and declined to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction, notwithstanding that Section 73(10) limits adjudication timeframes. The HC observed the availability of alternative statutory remedies under the GST regime and directed that factual and legal disputes concerning understatement in GSTR-3B vis-Ã -vis GSTR-1 be agitated before the competent adjudicating authority. Petition dismissed; no interference granted.
The HC dismissed the petitioner's writ petition for relief against an adjudication order under the GST Act, holding the challenge barred by delay and laches. The court found the petitioner failed to explain an approximately 11-month delay in seeking writ relief against an order dated 21 August 2024 and declined to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction, notwithstanding that Section 73(10) limits adjudication timeframes. The HC observed the availability of alternative statutory remedies under the GST regime and directed that factual and legal disputes concerning understatement in GSTR-3B vis-Ã -vis GSTR-1 be agitated before the competent adjudicating authority. Petition dismissed; no interference granted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
