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...
Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - Validity Of show-cause notice - The petitioner contended that the impugned show-cause notice and order were without jurisdiction because the Additional Commissioner of Customs, who issued them, was not authorized under the SEZ Act notifications of August 5, 2016. - The High Court observed a discrepancy between the petitioner's claim of not receiving notices and the impugned order's assertion that notices were served. This discrepancy led to disputed questions of fact. - As the issue of notice service involved factual disputes, the High Court declined to entertain the petition on this ground, leaving it for the appellate authority to examine during appeal proceedings.
Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - Validity Of show-cause notice - The petitioner contended that the impugned show-cause notice and order were without jurisdiction because the Additional Commissioner of Customs, who issued them, was not authorized under the SEZ Act notifications of August 5, 2016. - The High Court observed a discrepancy between the petitioner's claim of not receiving notices and the impugned order's assertion that notices were served. This discrepancy led to disputed questions of fact. - As the issue of notice service involved factual disputes, the High Court declined to entertain the petition on this ground, leaving it for the appellate authority to examine during appeal proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
