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 allows the petition, quashes and sets aside the impugned appellate orders dated 29 Sept 2023, and restores the order dated 22 Sept 2022 issued by respondent No.3, thereby directing sanction of the refund claim. The court finds that the Appellate Authority erred by disregarding that the petitioner had furnished Bank Realisation Certificates and corroborating documents evidencing foreign remittance and invoice particulars as required under Rule 89(2)(c) of the GST Rules. The HC holds the findings of the Appellate Authority are contrary to the record, noting respondent No.3's verification recorded in Form GST RFD-06, and concludes the petitioner complied with statutory documentary requirements for zero-rated supplies.
The HC allows the petition, quashes and sets aside the impugned appellate orders dated 29 Sept 2023, and restores the order dated 22 Sept 2022 issued by respondent No.3, thereby directing sanction of the refund claim. The court finds that the Appellate Authority erred by disregarding that the petitioner had furnished Bank Realisation Certificates and corroborating documents evidencing foreign remittance and invoice particulars as required under Rule 89(2)(c) of the GST Rules. The HC holds the findings of the Appellate Authority are contrary to the record, noting respondent No.3's verification recorded in Form GST RFD-06, and concludes the petitioner complied with statutory documentary requirements for zero-rated supplies.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
