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...
Levy of Interest - The respondent is not justified in levying interest from the original assessment year - In the case on hand, Rathna Residency is not the petitioner before this Court. It is only Rainbow Restaurant that is the petitioner before this Court. Rainbow Restaurant is contending that it cannot be considered as “a restaurant attached to a star hotel”. Thus the petitioner was under a bonefide impression that they are not liable to pay tax at a higher rate. Therefore, as per Section 42 of the Act, only from the date on which the petitioner's liability is quantified, the question of paying tax would arise. - HC
Levy of Interest - The respondent is not justified in levying interest from the original assessment year - In the case on hand, Rathna Residency is not the petitioner before this Court. It is only Rainbow Restaurant that is the petitioner before this Court. Rainbow Restaurant is contending that it cannot be considered as “a restaurant attached to a star hotel”. Thus the petitioner was under a bonefide impression that they are not liable to pay tax at a higher rate. Therefore, as per Section 42 of the Act, only from the date on which the petitioner's liability is quantified, the question of paying tax would arise. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
