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...
The Supreme Court examined the validity of an Agreement to Sell for land, where the plaintiff entered into the agreement with a Power of Attorney holder for the defendants. The Court found that the agreement lacked signatures of all co-owners, and the power of attorney was not proven during trial. The plaintiff failed to appear as a witness, relying on the Power of Attorney holder instead. The Court noted the delay in filing the suit, which was done on the last day of the extended limitation period. As the plaintiff only engaged with one co-owner and delayed legal action despite knowledge of subsequent transactions, specific performance relief was denied due to the delay and failure to meet legal requirements.
The Supreme Court examined the validity of an Agreement to Sell for land, where the plaintiff entered into the agreement with a Power of Attorney holder for the defendants. The Court found that the agreement lacked signatures of all co-owners, and the power of attorney was not proven during trial. The plaintiff failed to appear as a witness, relying on the Power of Attorney holder instead. The Court noted the delay in filing the suit, which was done on the last day of the extended limitation period. As the plaintiff only engaged with one co-owner and delayed legal action despite knowledge of subsequent transactions, specific performance relief was denied due to the delay and failure to meet legal requirements.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
