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 held that, pursuant to Notification No.04/2018 fixing time of supply under a JDA as the date of conveyance or allotment, no GST liability arose on the petitioner at the date of the JDA; subsequent evidence, including the sale deed showing the developer's acquisition of title and favourable findings by the DGGI, confirm the petitioner is not taxable in respect of the Project. Consequently the Rs. 7 crore deposited by the petitioner is refundable, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of deposit. The refund is to be remitted within six weeks. The Revenue's contrary affidavits were rejected insofar as they sought to fix tax liability on the petitioner.
The HC held that, pursuant to Notification No.04/2018 fixing time of supply under a JDA as the date of conveyance or allotment, no GST liability arose on the petitioner at the date of the JDA; subsequent evidence, including the sale deed showing the developer's acquisition of title and favourable findings by the DGGI, confirm the petitioner is not taxable in respect of the Project. Consequently the Rs. 7 crore deposited by the petitioner is refundable, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of deposit. The refund is to be remitted within six weeks. The Revenue's contrary affidavits were rejected insofar as they sought to fix tax liability on the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
