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 respondent lacked jurisdiction to invoke the extended limitation under s.74(1) read with s.74(10) of the GST Act in the absence of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression by the petitioner. The court found the impugned show-cause notice failed to allege omission to declare information in returns or failure to furnish information when asked, rendering Explanation 2 inapplicable. The respondent's reliance on the petitioner's conduct, earlier litigation and withdrawal did not supply requisite material to assume extended jurisdiction. Consequently, the show-cause notice dated 05.08.2024 and the consequent Order-in-Original dated 04.02.2025 were quashed and set aside; petition allowed.
HC held that the respondent lacked jurisdiction to invoke the extended limitation under s.74(1) read with s.74(10) of the GST Act in the absence of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression by the petitioner. The court found the impugned show-cause notice failed to allege omission to declare information in returns or failure to furnish information when asked, rendering Explanation 2 inapplicable. The respondent's reliance on the petitioner's conduct, earlier litigation and withdrawal did not supply requisite material to assume extended jurisdiction. Consequently, the show-cause notice dated 05.08.2024 and the consequent Order-in-Original dated 04.02.2025 were quashed and set aside; petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
