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 dismissed the writ petition, holding the impugned adjudicatory order dated 27 January 2025 has become final due to the lapse of the statutory appeal period under Section 107 CGST; no sufficient explanation justified the delay in prosecuting the appeal. The court found no gross breach of natural justice: the Adjudicating Authority considered the petitioner's filed reply and documents, and acknowledgements evidenced filing though not incontrovertible proof of attendance. On the merits, the HC concluded the petitioner colluded with a third-party supplier to fraudulently avail ineligible ITC, failed to rebut the show-cause allegations or identify the supplier, and did not cooperate in proceedings. No exceptional circumstances warranted condonation of delay or exercise of writ jurisdiction.
The HC dismissed the writ petition, holding the impugned adjudicatory order dated 27 January 2025 has become final due to the lapse of the statutory appeal period under Section 107 CGST; no sufficient explanation justified the delay in prosecuting the appeal. The court found no gross breach of natural justice: the Adjudicating Authority considered the petitioner's filed reply and documents, and acknowledgements evidenced filing though not incontrovertible proof of attendance. On the merits, the HC concluded the petitioner colluded with a third-party supplier to fraudulently avail ineligible ITC, failed to rebut the show-cause allegations or identify the supplier, and did not cooperate in proceedings. No exceptional circumstances warranted condonation of delay or exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
