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 the impugned order failed to apply sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the CGST Act, which was made effective from 1 July 2017 and prescribes that, notwithstanding sub-section (4), a registered person may claim input tax credit for invoices/debit notes relating to FY 2017-18 through FY 2020-21 in any return filed up to 30 November 2021. Because the authority did not consider the implications of s.16(5) when deciding the dispute between the anonymized petitioner and respondent, the HC set aside the decision and remitted the matter to the authority for fresh adjudication in light of s.16(5). The petition was disposed by remand.
The HC held that the impugned order failed to apply sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the CGST Act, which was made effective from 1 July 2017 and prescribes that, notwithstanding sub-section (4), a registered person may claim input tax credit for invoices/debit notes relating to FY 2017-18 through FY 2020-21 in any return filed up to 30 November 2021. Because the authority did not consider the implications of s.16(5) when deciding the dispute between the anonymized petitioner and respondent, the HC set aside the decision and remitted the matter to the authority for fresh adjudication in light of s.16(5). The petition was disposed by remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
