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 special audit u/s 142(2A) - The Jharkhand High Court upheld the orders for a special audit of the petitioner’s accounts for the assessment years 2020-21 and 2022-23. The court found that the discrepancies in the petitioner’s accounts justified the special audit and that the statutory requirements for ordering such an audit were met. While the court acknowledged a procedural lapse in providing insufficient time for the petitioner to respond, it held that this did not cause significant prejudice to warrant interference. The petitioner’s writ petitions were dismissed, with the court providing additional time for the audit and specific directions to ensure a fair audit process.
Validity of special audit u/s 142(2A) - The Jharkhand High Court upheld the orders for a special audit of the petitioner’s accounts for the assessment years 2020-21 and 2022-23. The court found that the discrepancies in the petitioner’s accounts justified the special audit and that the statutory requirements for ordering such an audit were met. While the court acknowledged a procedural lapse in providing insufficient time for the petitioner to respond, it held that this did not cause significant prejudice to warrant interference. The petitioner’s writ petitions were dismissed, with the court providing additional time for the audit and specific directions to ensure a fair audit process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
