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 quashed cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration and allowed the petition, holding the impugned quasi-judicial order unlawful for failure to disclose the adjudicating officer, failure to afford adequate notice and personal hearing, and consequent violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner's Article 19(1)(g) liberty to carry on business. The Court found the adjudicatory order bereft of application of mind and thus arbitrary, failing the Article 14 test. Because the petitioner only learned of the cancellation belatedly and was not afforded any opportunity to be heard, the prior dismissal on limitation grounds could not sustain the cancellation; the impugned orders are set aside.
The HC quashed cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration and allowed the petition, holding the impugned quasi-judicial order unlawful for failure to disclose the adjudicating officer, failure to afford adequate notice and personal hearing, and consequent violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner's Article 19(1)(g) liberty to carry on business. The Court found the adjudicatory order bereft of application of mind and thus arbitrary, failing the Article 14 test. Because the petitioner only learned of the cancellation belatedly and was not afforded any opportunity to be heard, the prior dismissal on limitation grounds could not sustain the cancellation; the impugned orders are set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
