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 set aside the impugned order insofar as it retrospectively cancelled the petitioner's GST registration from 7 June 2024, holding that retrospective cancellation cannot be exercised mechanically and must be supported by reasons in the order. The court found the SCN did not raise retrospective cancellation and the order relied solely on the petitioner's alleged absence from the declared place of business-a fact reasonably controverted by the petitioner's reply and photographic evidence. The retrospective cancellation was therefore quashed and the matter remitted to the concerned Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication on merits after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
The HC set aside the impugned order insofar as it retrospectively cancelled the petitioner's GST registration from 7 June 2024, holding that retrospective cancellation cannot be exercised mechanically and must be supported by reasons in the order. The court found the SCN did not raise retrospective cancellation and the order relied solely on the petitioner's alleged absence from the declared place of business-a fact reasonably controverted by the petitioner's reply and photographic evidence. The retrospective cancellation was therefore quashed and the matter remitted to the concerned Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication on merits after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
