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 IGST levy on ocean freight under the reverse-charge notifications was ultra vires and contrary to the GST scheme, requiring refund of Rs. 2,62,37,558 paid by the Petitioner; the Respondents have refunded that amount. The petition further succeeded in claiming interest of Rs. 71,31,225, which the HC directed the Respondents to pay forthwith and in any event within four weeks of judgment. The court clarified that Sections 54/56 were inapplicable to the initial unlawful collection, but nonetheless sanctioned the quantified interest on the merits. Petition disposed.
The HC held that the impugned IGST levy on ocean freight under the reverse-charge notifications was ultra vires and contrary to the GST scheme, requiring refund of Rs. 2,62,37,558 paid by the Petitioner; the Respondents have refunded that amount. The petition further succeeded in claiming interest of Rs. 71,31,225, which the HC directed the Respondents to pay forthwith and in any event within four weeks of judgment. The court clarified that Sections 54/56 were inapplicable to the initial unlawful collection, but nonetheless sanctioned the quantified interest on the merits. Petition disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.