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...
Issuance of only a summary show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 does not satisfy the requirement of a proper prior notice under Section 73(1) read with Rule 142(1), because the summary is not a substitute for the statutory notice that sets adjudication in motion. The Court held that the notice, the statement under Section 73(3), and the order under Section 73(9) must be issued by the Proper Officer in accordance with the statutory scheme, and such compliance is a condition precedent to a valid Section 73(9) order. As no proper prior notice had been served, the HC quashed the impugned order and consequential actions, while granting liberty to initiate fresh proceedings and directing exclusion of the specified period for limitation purposes.
Issuance of only a summary show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 does not satisfy the requirement of a proper prior notice under Section 73(1) read with Rule 142(1), because the summary is not a substitute for the statutory notice that sets adjudication in motion. The Court held that the notice, the statement under Section 73(3), and the order under Section 73(9) must be issued by the Proper Officer in accordance with the statutory scheme, and such compliance is a condition precedent to a valid Section 73(9) order. As no proper prior notice had been served, the HC quashed the impugned order and consequential actions, while granting liberty to initiate fresh proceedings and directing exclusion of the specified period for limitation purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
