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...
Writ jurisdiction may be invoked when the statutory appellate forum is not constituted or functional, because an aggrieved person cannot be left remediless. Once the GSTAT became functional and the appeal-filing timeline was notified, the writ court declined to retain the challenge and relegated the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy. The Court held that the absence of a functional tribunal did not waive the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 112(8); the petitioner was required to file the appeal before GSTAT within the notified period after making the prescribed deposit. The merits of the first appellate order were not examined.
Writ jurisdiction may be invoked when the statutory appellate forum is not constituted or functional, because an aggrieved person cannot be left remediless. Once the GSTAT became functional and the appeal-filing timeline was notified, the writ court declined to retain the challenge and relegated the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy. The Court held that the absence of a functional tribunal did not waive the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 112(8); the petitioner was required to file the appeal before GSTAT within the notified period after making the prescribed deposit. The merits of the first appellate order were not examined.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
