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...
A Joint Commissioner who had issued the show-cause notice before a later circular could validly pass the Order-in-Original imposing penalty for fraudulent availment and passing of ITC, since the proceedings had been initiated under Section 74 and the same officer had jurisdiction on the date of adjudication. The Court held that Section 160 of the CGST Act cured mere procedural defects or omissions where the proceedings were otherwise in substance in conformity with the Act. It also noted that the petitioner had not effectively contested jurisdiction at the notice stage or participated in the proceedings, so the objection was untenable. The writ challenge failed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
A Joint Commissioner who had issued the show-cause notice before a later circular could validly pass the Order-in-Original imposing penalty for fraudulent availment and passing of ITC, since the proceedings had been initiated under Section 74 and the same officer had jurisdiction on the date of adjudication. The Court held that Section 160 of the CGST Act cured mere procedural defects or omissions where the proceedings were otherwise in substance in conformity with the Act. It also noted that the petitioner had not effectively contested jurisdiction at the notice stage or participated in the proceedings, so the objection was untenable. The writ challenge failed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
