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...
HC held that initiation of proceedings under s.130 of the GST Act based solely on alleged excess stock observed during a survey, without physical counting, was unsustainable. The court reiterated that registered persons must maintain accounts under s.35 and that s.35(6) permits determination of tax on unaccounted goods with applicability of ss.73/74 mutatis mutandis, but proceedings under s.130 are not the appropriate mechanism where excess stock is merely noted on survey. In consequence, the impugned orders were quashed and the petition allowed, with directions accordingly, and no order for proceedings under s.130 to be sustained in the present facts.
HC held that initiation of proceedings under s.130 of the GST Act based solely on alleged excess stock observed during a survey, without physical counting, was unsustainable. The court reiterated that registered persons must maintain accounts under s.35 and that s.35(6) permits determination of tax on unaccounted goods with applicability of ss.73/74 mutatis mutandis, but proceedings under s.130 are not the appropriate mechanism where excess stock is merely noted on survey. In consequence, the impugned orders were quashed and the petition allowed, with directions accordingly, and no order for proceedings under s.130 to be sustained in the present facts.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
