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...
Section 107 of the GST law allows an appeal within three months, with only one further month condonable on sufficient cause; once that outer limit expires, neither the Appellate Authority nor the HC can extend time. Applying Supreme Court guidance, the Court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to override the statutory limitation scheme, and explanations such as accountant negligence did not justify condonation beyond the cap. Having already pursued the statutory appeal, the petitioner was also not permitted to reopen the show-cause notice or cancellation order in writ proceedings, especially where no appearance was made before the appellate authority despite opportunity. The writ petition was dismissed.
Section 107 of the GST law allows an appeal within three months, with only one further month condonable on sufficient cause; once that outer limit expires, neither the Appellate Authority nor the HC can extend time. Applying Supreme Court guidance, the Court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to override the statutory limitation scheme, and explanations such as accountant negligence did not justify condonation beyond the cap. Having already pursued the statutory appeal, the petitioner was also not permitted to reopen the show-cause notice or cancellation order in writ proceedings, especially where no appearance was made before the appellate authority despite opportunity. The writ petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
