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...
Refund claim - petitioner had not filed returns either u/s 139(1) or within the extended period u/s 139 (4) - Since the law mandates a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it was incumbent on the part of the second respondent or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer ought to have issued a notice under Section 148 to determine the tax liability of the petitioner. As this was not done, case deserves to be remitted back to the second respondent to first finalize the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 2011-12 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failure to issue a notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961, cannot be to the prejudice of the petitioner, if ultimately it is found that petitioner was entitled to a refund. However, liberty is given to penalise the petitioner for failure to file returns in time and for levy of interest if any. - HC
Refund claim - petitioner had not filed returns either u/s 139(1) or within the extended period u/s 139 (4) - Since the law mandates a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it was incumbent on the part of the second respondent or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer ought to have issued a notice under Section 148 to determine the tax liability of the petitioner. As this was not done, case deserves to be remitted back to the second respondent to first finalize the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 2011-12 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failure to issue a notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961, cannot be to the prejudice of the petitioner, if ultimately it is found that petitioner was entitled to a refund. However, liberty is given to penalise the petitioner for failure to file returns in time and for levy of interest if any. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
