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...
Regular Approval u/s 80G(5) - The High Court found that while the respondents had the authority to extend the time limit, there was no valid reason provided for the differential treatment between existing and new trusts regarding Section 80G approval. The court noted that the classification lacked a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, rendering it arbitrary and unconstitutional. - The court held that the petitioners did not have an inherent right to claim further extensions of time, even if an initial extension was granted by the respondents. The extension of time was considered an act of benevolence rather than a creation of vested rights on the part of the petitioners.
Regular Approval u/s 80G(5) - The High Court found that while the respondents had the authority to extend the time limit, there was no valid reason provided for the differential treatment between existing and new trusts regarding Section 80G approval. The court noted that the classification lacked a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, rendering it arbitrary and unconstitutional. - The court held that the petitioners did not have an inherent right to claim further extensions of time, even if an initial extension was granted by the respondents. The extension of time was considered an act of benevolence rather than a creation of vested rights on the part of the petitioners.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
