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 petition and refused grant of pre-arrest bail in respect of summons issued by respondent No.3 under section 70 of the CGST Act, concluding that the petitioner faces specific and serious allegations of operating a fictitious firm, facilitating fraudulent input tax credit of approximately Rs. 29.4 crore, preparing false e-way bills, providing incorrect bank details and orchestrating inter-account fund rotation to evade revenue, and furnishing fictitious supplier details. The Court found the inquiry to be at a nascent stage, the petitioner non-cooperative, and a substantial revenue loss alleged; it held there is a real risk of misuse of pre-arrest bail enabling evasion of custodial interrogation, tampering with evidence or manipulation of records, warranting dismissal.
The HC dismissed the petition and refused grant of pre-arrest bail in respect of summons issued by respondent No.3 under section 70 of the CGST Act, concluding that the petitioner faces specific and serious allegations of operating a fictitious firm, facilitating fraudulent input tax credit of approximately Rs. 29.4 crore, preparing false e-way bills, providing incorrect bank details and orchestrating inter-account fund rotation to evade revenue, and furnishing fictitious supplier details. The Court found the inquiry to be at a nascent stage, the petitioner non-cooperative, and a substantial revenue loss alleged; it held there is a real risk of misuse of pre-arrest bail enabling evasion of custodial interrogation, tampering with evidence or manipulation of records, warranting dismissal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
