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...
HC held that the appellate authority's suo motu restoration of an IGST demand, previously dropped by the adjudicating authority, was unsustainable under the statutory scheme and Section 75(7); the appellate body could not lawfully revive the demand without issuing a fresh show-cause notice as contemplated by the second proviso to Section 107(11). Because the outer limitation for issuing a fresh show-cause has expired, the petitioner cannot be saddled with a new liability and the impugned demand is set aside. The respondents are directed to revise the demand in FORM GST APL-04 in accordance with this order and, insofar as discrepancy No. 4 engages Section 16(5), to grant the petitioner any entitled benefit. Petition disposed.
HC held that the appellate authority's suo motu restoration of an IGST demand, previously dropped by the adjudicating authority, was unsustainable under the statutory scheme and Section 75(7); the appellate body could not lawfully revive the demand without issuing a fresh show-cause notice as contemplated by the second proviso to Section 107(11). Because the outer limitation for issuing a fresh show-cause has expired, the petitioner cannot be saddled with a new liability and the impugned demand is set aside. The respondents are directed to revise the demand in FORM GST APL-04 in accordance with this order and, insofar as discrepancy No. 4 engages Section 16(5), to grant the petitioner any entitled benefit. Petition disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
