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...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
A show cause notice under the CGST Act cannot club multiple financial years into one proceeding, because liability, annual return compliance and limitation operate separately for each tax period. A single notice combining distinct years would impermissibly aggregate different due dates and limitation consequences; the impugned notice was therefore quashed. The Court also held that, within the State, its own later decisions on this point were binding, and the contrary Delhi High Court view could not prevail. The Supreme Court's in limine dismissal of the challenge to that view did not attract merger and did not displace the binding effect of the Court's decisions. Liberty was reserved to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law.
A show cause notice under the CGST Act cannot club multiple financial years into one proceeding, because liability, annual return compliance and limitation operate separately for each tax period. A single notice combining distinct years would impermissibly aggregate different due dates and limitation consequences; the impugned notice was therefore quashed. The Court also held that, within the State, its own later decisions on this point were binding, and the contrary Delhi High Court view could not prevail. The Supreme Court's in limine dismissal of the challenge to that view did not attract merger and did not displace the binding effect of the Court's decisions. Liberty was reserved to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
