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...
Benami Property Transactions - Real/original owner - provisional attachment order issued u/s 24(3) of the Benami Transactions Act, 1988 - The High Court found in favor of the petitioner, holding that the show cause notice and provisional attachment order lacked a sufficient basis. The court referenced a Supreme Court ruling declaring certain sections of the Act unconstitutional and inapplicable retrospectively. Since the purchase of the land preceded the amendment to the Act, the court ruled that no proceedings could be initiated by the department. - Further, the court criticized the department for relying solely on a contractor's statement without substantial evidence. It emphasized the lack of supporting material or questioning of the contractor's basis for the claim, deeming the proceedings initiated without sufficient grounds.
Benami Property Transactions - Real/original owner - provisional attachment order issued u/s 24(3) of the Benami Transactions Act, 1988 - The High Court found in favor of the petitioner, holding that the show cause notice and provisional attachment order lacked a sufficient basis. The court referenced a Supreme Court ruling declaring certain sections of the Act unconstitutional and inapplicable retrospectively. Since the purchase of the land preceded the amendment to the Act, the court ruled that no proceedings could be initiated by the department. - Further, the court criticized the department for relying solely on a contractor's statement without substantial evidence. It emphasized the lack of supporting material or questioning of the contractor's basis for the claim, deeming the proceedings initiated without sufficient grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
