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 allowed the petition and quashed the impugned show cause notice issued under s.74 of the CGST Act against the petitioner. The court held the jurisdictional fact of wilful suppression with intent to evade tax was not pleaded or established; mere omission to disclose correct value or apply the proper GST rate in GSTR-5A, or classification disputes concerning OIDAR-type services under Type-II/Type-III tests, do not satisfy the mens rea required to invoke the extended period. Absent proof of conscious, deliberate suppression to evade payment, the stringent provisions of s.74 cannot be lawfully invoked, rendering the SCN manifestly without jurisdiction and therefore liable to be quashed.
HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned show cause notice issued under s.74 of the CGST Act against the petitioner. The court held the jurisdictional fact of wilful suppression with intent to evade tax was not pleaded or established; mere omission to disclose correct value or apply the proper GST rate in GSTR-5A, or classification disputes concerning OIDAR-type services under Type-II/Type-III tests, do not satisfy the mens rea required to invoke the extended period. Absent proof of conscious, deliberate suppression to evade payment, the stringent provisions of s.74 cannot be lawfully invoked, rendering the SCN manifestly without jurisdiction and therefore liable to be quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
