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 writ appeal, set aside the Single-Member bench decision and ruled for the Revenue. The court held that refunds under section 49(6) are permissive only "in accordance with" section 54, and do not independently entitle a taxpayer to refund accumulated input tax credit (ITC) on discontinuance or disposals unless statutory preconditions are met. The respondent failed to plead or prove reversal of accumulated credit under section 29(5) and did not establish entitlement under section 54 or applicable rules. Consequently the writ was held not maintainable and no constitutional or statutory violation was made out entitling to the claimed refund.
The HC allowed the writ appeal, set aside the Single-Member bench decision and ruled for the Revenue. The court held that refunds under section 49(6) are permissive only "in accordance with" section 54, and do not independently entitle a taxpayer to refund accumulated input tax credit (ITC) on discontinuance or disposals unless statutory preconditions are met. The respondent failed to plead or prove reversal of accumulated credit under section 29(5) and did not establish entitlement under section 54 or applicable rules. Consequently the writ was held not maintainable and no constitutional or statutory violation was made out entitling to the claimed refund.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
