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 the retrospective cancellation of the Petitioner's GST registration invalid because the impugned cancellation order dated 14 Nov 2020 bore no signature or digital signature as mandated by Rule 26(3) CGST Rules and the Respondents failed to discharge the onus of proving compliance; principles of natural justice were thereby infringed. The court found no evidence or sworn statement of a signed/digitally signed order, rejected inferential contentions, and declared the unsigned order to be no order in law until properly signed. Consequentially, the Appellate Authority's 28 Feb 2025 dismissal on limitation grounds shall not survive. Appeal disposed.
The HC held the retrospective cancellation of the Petitioner's GST registration invalid because the impugned cancellation order dated 14 Nov 2020 bore no signature or digital signature as mandated by Rule 26(3) CGST Rules and the Respondents failed to discharge the onus of proving compliance; principles of natural justice were thereby infringed. The court found no evidence or sworn statement of a signed/digitally signed order, rejected inferential contentions, and declared the unsigned order to be no order in law until properly signed. Consequentially, the Appellate Authority's 28 Feb 2025 dismissal on limitation grounds shall not survive. Appeal disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
