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...
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined against a show cause notice and consequential order under section 74 of the CGST Act because an efficacious statutory appeal was available under section 107 read with Rule 109A. The Court held that challenges requiring examination of the corrigendum, the underlying material, and the nature of the correction involved factual appreciation and therefore did not fall within the limited certiorari jurisdiction. Mere disagreement with the adjudicating authority's conclusions was insufficient to bypass the appellate remedy. The Court also noted that recognised exceptional grounds such as breach of fundamental rights, natural justice violations, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires were not made out on the material before it, and it expressed no opinion on the merits.
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined against a show cause notice and consequential order under section 74 of the CGST Act because an efficacious statutory appeal was available under section 107 read with Rule 109A. The Court held that challenges requiring examination of the corrigendum, the underlying material, and the nature of the correction involved factual appreciation and therefore did not fall within the limited certiorari jurisdiction. Mere disagreement with the adjudicating authority's conclusions was insufficient to bypass the appellate remedy. The Court also noted that recognised exceptional grounds such as breach of fundamental rights, natural justice violations, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires were not made out on the material before it, and it expressed no opinion on the merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
