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 and upheld the validity of Sections 69 and 132 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, holding that the challenge to vires of those provisions-alleging lack of legislative competence and contravention of Article 13-does not survive in the present factual matrix, particularly because the contested provisions are analogous to Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act. The court concluded that, on the record before it, there is no subsisting forum for sustaining the constitutional attack, and consequently the petitioners' plea for striking down the impugned sections was negatived and the petition was dismissed.
The HC dismissed the writ petition and upheld the validity of Sections 69 and 132 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, holding that the challenge to vires of those provisions-alleging lack of legislative competence and contravention of Article 13-does not survive in the present factual matrix, particularly because the contested provisions are analogous to Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act. The court concluded that, on the record before it, there is no subsisting forum for sustaining the constitutional attack, and consequently the petitioners' plea for striking down the impugned sections was negatived and the petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.