Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, a liability admitted during enquiry or investigation was not treated as final quantification of duty by itself. Eligibility required the duty payable in the pending matter to be quantified on or before the statutory cut-off date, and a partial admission during investigation could not satisfy that requirement. On that basis, the rejection of the declaration was upheld because the tax liability had not been finally quantified by 30.06.2019. The hearing before the Designated Committee arose only after eligibility was established, so no prior hearing was required where the declarant was ex facie ineligible.
Under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, a liability admitted during enquiry or investigation was not treated as final quantification of duty by itself. Eligibility required the duty payable in the pending matter to be quantified on or before the statutory cut-off date, and a partial admission during investigation could not satisfy that requirement. On that basis, the rejection of the declaration was upheld because the tax liability had not been finally quantified by 30.06.2019. The hearing before the Designated Committee arose only after eligibility was established, so no prior hearing was required where the declarant was ex facie ineligible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.