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 High Court interpreted the phrase "where it is possible to do so" u/s 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, ruling that it allows flexibility only in exceptional circumstances beyond the Adjudicating Authority's control. The legislative intent behind Section 11A(11) emphasizes timely adjudication. The Court held that the 6-month or 2-year limitation cannot be extended to over 7 years. Citing K.M Sharma Vs. I.T.O, it stressed strict construction of fiscal statutes for certainty. Delay impacts Article 14 of the Constitution; a reasonable time frame of 5 years u/s 11A is upheld. The Court found a 7-year delay unreasonable, emphasizing completion within the statutory 5-year limit. The application was allowed.
The High Court interpreted the phrase "where it is possible to do so" u/s 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, ruling that it allows flexibility only in exceptional circumstances beyond the Adjudicating Authority's control. The legislative intent behind Section 11A(11) emphasizes timely adjudication. The Court held that the 6-month or 2-year limitation cannot be extended to over 7 years. Citing K.M Sharma Vs. I.T.O, it stressed strict construction of fiscal statutes for certainty. Delay impacts Article 14 of the Constitution; a reasonable time frame of 5 years u/s 11A is upheld. The Court found a 7-year delay unreasonable, emphasizing completion within the statutory 5-year limit. The application was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
