Donor-directed corpus contributions retain capital character despite exemption claims under section 10(23C)(vi), preventing their treatment as taxable...
Enhanced tax-audit threshold applies where banking records establish compliant non-cash receipts and payments, eliminating penalty exposure for audit ...
Transfer pricing consistency protects identical non-interest-bearing debenture terms from a later notional-interest adjustment without valid statutory...
Rectification of debatable deduction claims cannot reverse scrutiny-approved co-operative society interest income deductions as apparent record errors...
Cash-method accounting bars presumptive interest taxation, while unsupported securities and share-trading additions require reliable material and veri...
The first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS is mandatory, so the accused must be heard before cognizance is taken; safeguards under the Income-tax Act do not displace that requirement. The court applied the rule that a statutory act prescribed in a particular manner must be done only in that manner, and rejected the argument that pre-cognizance hearing is an empty formality. Because cognizance was taken after the BNSS came into force, Section 531 did not preserve the earlier procedure, and the applicable BNSS procedure governed. Non-compliance was therefore an illegality vitiating the proceedings, so the cognizance orders were set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the accused.
The first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS is mandatory, so the accused must be heard before cognizance is taken; safeguards under the Income-tax Act do not displace that requirement. The court applied the rule that a statutory act prescribed in a particular manner must be done only in that manner, and rejected the argument that pre-cognizance hearing is an empty formality. Because cognizance was taken after the BNSS came into force, Section 531 did not preserve the earlier procedure, and the applicable BNSS procedure governed. Non-compliance was therefore an illegality vitiating the proceedings, so the cognizance orders were set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the accused.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.