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 petition and quashed the impugned orders dated 30.04.2019 and 22.02.2018 issued under Section 129(3) of the GST Act. The court held that the vehicle (Reg. No. UP80CT-3246) is properly classified as an open-body truck per the Registration Certificate, a fact not disputed by the State, and therefore could not be treated as a light commercial vehicle as the Appellate Authority retrospectively asserted without supporting material or any clarification from the Transport Department. The record disclosed a discrepancy in the invoiced quantity but no finding of tax-evasion or culpable intent by the authorities below; accordingly the enforcement orders were held unsustainable in law.
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders dated 30.04.2019 and 22.02.2018 issued under Section 129(3) of the GST Act. The court held that the vehicle (Reg. No. UP80CT-3246) is properly classified as an open-body truck per the Registration Certificate, a fact not disputed by the State, and therefore could not be treated as a light commercial vehicle as the Appellate Authority retrospectively asserted without supporting material or any clarification from the Transport Department. The record disclosed a discrepancy in the invoiced quantity but no finding of tax-evasion or culpable intent by the authorities below; accordingly the enforcement orders were held unsustainable in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
