Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
Overlapping GST proceedings were not examined on merits in writ jurisdiction because the petitioner had not participated in the second proceedings to place the alleged overlap before the proper officer. The Court noted that the identity of demand was not enough for immediate merits review and held that rectification under Section 161 remained the appropriate first remedy, as the six-month period had not expired. The petitioner was allowed to seek rectification within two weeks, to be decided after hearing, with liberty to pursue any available appellate remedy thereafter. The Court left the merits of the overlap objection open.
Overlapping GST proceedings were not examined on merits in writ jurisdiction because the petitioner had not participated in the second proceedings to place the alleged overlap before the proper officer. The Court noted that the identity of demand was not enough for immediate merits review and held that rectification under Section 161 remained the appropriate first remedy, as the six-month period had not expired. The petitioner was allowed to seek rectification within two weeks, to be decided after hearing, with liberty to pursue any available appellate remedy thereafter. The Court left the merits of the overlap objection open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
