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 U.P. GST law did not exclude prosecution under the general penal law for alleged creation of fake firms, fictitious invoices and wrongful input tax credit claims, because its without prejudice clause preserves other penal provisions and does not bar an FIR for offences under general criminal law. The Court rejected the plea that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was inapplicable merely because GST offences were also alleged. On the facts, prima facie material showed involvement in creating a fictitious firm, generating false e-way bills through another bogus concern, and evading tax without actual movement of goods, so bail was refused.
The U.P. GST law did not exclude prosecution under the general penal law for alleged creation of fake firms, fictitious invoices and wrongful input tax credit claims, because its without prejudice clause preserves other penal provisions and does not bar an FIR for offences under general criminal law. The Court rejected the plea that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was inapplicable merely because GST offences were also alleged. On the facts, prima facie material showed involvement in creating a fictitious firm, generating false e-way bills through another bogus concern, and evading tax without actual movement of goods, so bail was refused.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.