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 writ challenge to rejection of a GST refund was declined because the Court found no jurisdictional defect or breach of natural justice warranting Article 226 interference. It held that there is a material distinction between lack of jurisdiction and an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, and that disputes over the correctness of factual findings, including adequacy of supporting refund documents, should be pursued in the statutory appellate forum. The Court also rejected the argument that the GSTAT was inefficacious, noting that the Tribunal had begun functioning and could hear appeals. The petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal, with all merits left open.
A writ challenge to rejection of a GST refund was declined because the Court found no jurisdictional defect or breach of natural justice warranting Article 226 interference. It held that there is a material distinction between lack of jurisdiction and an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, and that disputes over the correctness of factual findings, including adequacy of supporting refund documents, should be pursued in the statutory appellate forum. The Court also rejected the argument that the GSTAT was inefficacious, noting that the Tribunal had begun functioning and could hear appeals. The petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal, with all merits left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
