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 upheld the detention and seizure order of goods where no e-way bill was produced prior to commencement of movement; subsequent generation of the e-way bill after interception did not cure the defect. The court held that non-production of the e-way bill at the relevant time justified detention and seizure under the statutory scheme, and interference was unwarranted. The decision follows controlling Division Bench precedent that absence of an e-way bill at the time of interception renders seizure proceedings valid irrespective of asserted technical glitches or subsequent belated generation, so the challenge to the seizure failed and the petition was dismissed.
The HC dismissed the petition and upheld the detention and seizure order of goods where no e-way bill was produced prior to commencement of movement; subsequent generation of the e-way bill after interception did not cure the defect. The court held that non-production of the e-way bill at the relevant time justified detention and seizure under the statutory scheme, and interference was unwarranted. The decision follows controlling Division Bench precedent that absence of an e-way bill at the time of interception renders seizure proceedings valid irrespective of asserted technical glitches or subsequent belated generation, so the challenge to the seizure failed and the petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
