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...
Validity Of Order passed u/s 73 - Denial of ITC with respect to the suppliers whose GST registration has been cancelled retrospectively - The petitioner sought the right of cross-examination of witnesses and documents but was denied due to time constraints. Additionally, the petitioner raised the issue of a coercive deposit of Rs. 20 Lakhs during a search and survey, which was not addressed in the impugned order. The High Court acknowledged the potential prejudice caused by the denial of cross-examination and directed the proper officer to reconsider both the ITC denial and the refund of the coercive deposit. The Court left all rights and contentions open and allowed the petition with a limited order of remit to the proper officer.
Validity Of Order passed u/s 73 - Denial of ITC with respect to the suppliers whose GST registration has been cancelled retrospectively - The petitioner sought the right of cross-examination of witnesses and documents but was denied due to time constraints. Additionally, the petitioner raised the issue of a coercive deposit of Rs. 20 Lakhs during a search and survey, which was not addressed in the impugned order. The High Court acknowledged the potential prejudice caused by the denial of cross-examination and directed the proper officer to reconsider both the ITC denial and the refund of the coercive deposit. The Court left all rights and contentions open and allowed the petition with a limited order of remit to the proper officer.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
