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 held that the adjudicating authority's cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration violated principles of natural justice because no show-cause notice or detailed reasons were furnished, rendering the impugned order cryptic and unsustainable. The court further determined that under section 107(11) the appellate authority lacks power to remit the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a "second inning"; having concluded the original order could not be sustained, the appellate remand was unjustified. Accordingly, the HC set aside the portion of the impugned appellate order remanding the matter to the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner and quashed the subsequent order; petition allowed in favor of the petitioner.
The HC held that the adjudicating authority's cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration violated principles of natural justice because no show-cause notice or detailed reasons were furnished, rendering the impugned order cryptic and unsustainable. The court further determined that under section 107(11) the appellate authority lacks power to remit the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a "second inning"; having concluded the original order could not be sustained, the appellate remand was unjustified. Accordingly, the HC set aside the portion of the impugned appellate order remanding the matter to the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner and quashed the subsequent order; petition allowed in favor of the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
