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 allowed the writ petition, holding that the deficiency memos rejecting the petitioner's refund applications under S.54 CGST Act were legally untenable. The HC found the refund applications complete and accompanied by requisite documents, and ruled that a deficiency memo can be issued only where an application is incomplete or deficient. It further held that amounts deposited in DRC-03 during a search, purportedly under S.74(5), were not voluntary payments and therefore could validly be claimed as refund under S.54. The HC quashed the impugned deficiency memos dated 20.05.2025 and 21.05.2025, and directed the respondents to process the petitioner's refund claims for the DRC-03 payments and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the deficiency memos rejecting the petitioner's refund applications under S.54 CGST Act were legally untenable. The HC found the refund applications complete and accompanied by requisite documents, and ruled that a deficiency memo can be issued only where an application is incomplete or deficient. It further held that amounts deposited in DRC-03 during a search, purportedly under S.74(5), were not voluntary payments and therefore could validly be claimed as refund under S.54. The HC quashed the impugned deficiency memos dated 20.05.2025 and 21.05.2025, and directed the respondents to process the petitioner's refund claims for the DRC-03 payments and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
