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 allowed the petition, holding that the Petitioner is entitled to refund of IGST paid on zero-rated exports notwithstanding a typographical error in the GST return. The court found it undisputed that the Petitioner exported goods and paid IGST of Rs. 9,48,549, and that Rule 96 of the GST Rules in conjunction with section 16 entitles the Petitioner to refund. The Respondent Customs erred in withholding the refund solely on account of a mismatch between GST return data and customs records, having disregarded the Petitioner's supporting representation and documents. Respondents were directed to sanction the IGST refund immediately with statutory interest from the date of the shipping bills until actual payment.
The HC allowed the petition, holding that the Petitioner is entitled to refund of IGST paid on zero-rated exports notwithstanding a typographical error in the GST return. The court found it undisputed that the Petitioner exported goods and paid IGST of Rs. 9,48,549, and that Rule 96 of the GST Rules in conjunction with section 16 entitles the Petitioner to refund. The Respondent Customs erred in withholding the refund solely on account of a mismatch between GST return data and customs records, having disregarded the Petitioner's supporting representation and documents. Respondents were directed to sanction the IGST refund immediately with statutory interest from the date of the shipping bills until actual payment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
