Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
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...
Section 122(1) of the GST enactments was held to prescribe a mandatory penalty once the provision is attracted, because the phrase "whichever is higher" leaves no discretion to impose a lesser amount on proportionality grounds. The High Court rejected reliance on proportionality decisions from labour and excise jurisprudence, and noted that the petitioners were prima facie liable on the material in the assessment orders. It also found no procedural irregularity or lack of reasons in the impugned orders, and held that the statutory appellate remedy must be pursued instead of writ relief. The writ petitions were dismissed, but the petitioners were allowed to file appeals with the 10% pre-deposit requirement dispensed with.
Section 122(1) of the GST enactments was held to prescribe a mandatory penalty once the provision is attracted, because the phrase "whichever is higher" leaves no discretion to impose a lesser amount on proportionality grounds. The High Court rejected reliance on proportionality decisions from labour and excise jurisprudence, and noted that the petitioners were prima facie liable on the material in the assessment orders. It also found no procedural irregularity or lack of reasons in the impugned orders, and held that the statutory appellate remedy must be pursued instead of writ relief. The writ petitions were dismissed, but the petitioners were allowed to file appeals with the 10% pre-deposit requirement dispensed with.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
