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 petition challenging action under section 129(3) of the GST Act, holding that although an e-way bill was ultimately produced before the seizure and penalty orders, it was not generated contemporaneously with movement and was created after interception (at 1:19 p.m.), evidencing non-compliance with statutory requirements; accordingly, the court found no basis to infer absence of intent to evade tax or to disturb the impugned orders. The court applied its prior ratio and upheld the seizure and penalty, concluding that, on the facts and in law, no interference with the administrative orders was warranted.
The HC dismissed the petition challenging action under section 129(3) of the GST Act, holding that although an e-way bill was ultimately produced before the seizure and penalty orders, it was not generated contemporaneously with movement and was created after interception (at 1:19 p.m.), evidencing non-compliance with statutory requirements; accordingly, the court found no basis to infer absence of intent to evade tax or to disturb the impugned orders. The court applied its prior ratio and upheld the seizure and penalty, concluding that, on the facts and in law, no interference with the administrative orders was warranted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
