Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
Whether the impugned judgment erred by not considering statutory review timelines for refund recovery under Section 56 of the WBGST Act and Rule 94 - court examined the Canon India principle that omission of a statutory provision may be an error apparent on the face of the record but found the trial court did address Section 56 (noting it reinforces the mandatory character of Section 54(7)) and considered all legal provisions and facts; consequently the challenge based on non-consideration fails and the revision is dismissed. - HC
Whether the impugned judgment erred by not considering statutory review timelines for refund recovery under Section 56 of the WBGST Act and Rule 94 - court examined the Canon India principle that omission of a statutory provision may be an error apparent on the face of the record but found the trial court did address Section 56 (noting it reinforces the mandatory character of Section 54(7)) and considered all legal provisions and facts; consequently the challenge based on non-consideration fails and the revision is dismissed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
