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 74 of the GST Act cannot be invoked without material showing fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax; where the taxpayer reversed the disputed input tax credit before notice and the Revenue showed no conscious involvement in any fraudulent arrangement, the proceedings were held unsustainable. Interest under Section 50 was also refused because wrongly availed credit had been reversed before the show cause notice and the Electronic Credit Ledger retained surplus balance, so utilisation was not established. A further demand and penalty on the same reversal was treated as double taxation and beyond jurisdiction, and the impugned orders were quashed.
Section 74 of the GST Act cannot be invoked without material showing fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax; where the taxpayer reversed the disputed input tax credit before notice and the Revenue showed no conscious involvement in any fraudulent arrangement, the proceedings were held unsustainable. Interest under Section 50 was also refused because wrongly availed credit had been reversed before the show cause notice and the Electronic Credit Ledger retained surplus balance, so utilisation was not established. A further demand and penalty on the same reversal was treated as double taxation and beyond jurisdiction, and the impugned orders were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.