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...
The High Court held that a belated GST appeal concerning reconciliation of input tax credit mismatch could not be rejected on limitation alone where the records showed possible inconsistency in IGST, CGST and SGST credit availment and the authorities had not verified whether the disputed credits and payments were correctly accounted for. Because factual reconciliation was necessary to determine whether excess or short credit had been availed and whether the claimed payments had been given proper effect, the matter was remitted to the appellate authority for fresh disposal on merits without reference to limitation, subject to an additional deposit by the petitioner. If that condition was not met, the authorities were left free to proceed in accordance with law.
The High Court held that a belated GST appeal concerning reconciliation of input tax credit mismatch could not be rejected on limitation alone where the records showed possible inconsistency in IGST, CGST and SGST credit availment and the authorities had not verified whether the disputed credits and payments were correctly accounted for. Because factual reconciliation was necessary to determine whether excess or short credit had been availed and whether the claimed payments had been given proper effect, the matter was remitted to the appellate authority for fresh disposal on merits without reference to limitation, subject to an additional deposit by the petitioner. If that condition was not met, the authorities were left free to proceed in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.