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 and upheld the impugned arbitral awards rendered in favour of the respondent, enforcing the statutory variation clause in the contract. The Arbitrator found that similarly situated contractors had mistakenly invoiced GST at 5% instead of the applicable 12% and were entitled to the 7% differential; those awards were challenged by the petitioner but the HC, by a common order, dismissed the Section 34 challenges and held the awards free from patent illegality and not contrary to public policy. Accordingly, the arbitral awards stand enforced and the petitioner's challenge is dismissed, entitling the respondents to recovery of the differential GST as adjudicated.
The HC dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned arbitral awards rendered in favour of the respondent, enforcing the statutory variation clause in the contract. The Arbitrator found that similarly situated contractors had mistakenly invoiced GST at 5% instead of the applicable 12% and were entitled to the 7% differential; those awards were challenged by the petitioner but the HC, by a common order, dismissed the Section 34 challenges and held the awards free from patent illegality and not contrary to public policy. Accordingly, the arbitral awards stand enforced and the petitioner's challenge is dismissed, entitling the respondents to recovery of the differential GST as adjudicated.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
