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...
Amnesty scheme - SVLDRS - Petitioner’s case falls within the ambit of ‘enquiry or investigation’, as the Petitioner was issued summons dated 10.05.2019 by the Anti-Evasion Group 4, Central Excise & Service Tax. - However, unilateral quantification by the Petitioner by writing the letter/communication dated 18.06.2019 cannot render him eligible. - In the present case, since amount could not be said to have been ‘quantified’, the petitioner was not eligible, and therefore, the reasoning given by the respondent in rejecting the application does not call for any interference - HC
Amnesty scheme - SVLDRS - Petitioner’s case falls within the ambit of ‘enquiry or investigation’, as the Petitioner was issued summons dated 10.05.2019 by the Anti-Evasion Group 4, Central Excise & Service Tax. - However, unilateral quantification by the Petitioner by writing the letter/communication dated 18.06.2019 cannot render him eligible. - In the present case, since amount could not be said to have been ‘quantified’, the petitioner was not eligible, and therefore, the reasoning given by the respondent in rejecting the application does not call for any interference - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
