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 considered whether a slump sale under the BTA would be taxable as a sale of goods u/s the MVAT Act. The reviewing authority exceeded its jurisdiction by dissecting the BTA and copying reasoning from a service tax demand notice. The intangible assets in Schedule 3.3 of the BTA could not be considered as sale of goods, and taxing them was a flawed approach. The reviewing authority misinterpreted the BTA and the MVAT Act, leading to an illegal order. The Court held that the slump sale did not amount to sale of goods u/s the MVAT Act, and set aside the impugned order. The petition was allowed.
The High Court considered whether a slump sale under the BTA would be taxable as a sale of goods u/s the MVAT Act. The reviewing authority exceeded its jurisdiction by dissecting the BTA and copying reasoning from a service tax demand notice. The intangible assets in Schedule 3.3 of the BTA could not be considered as sale of goods, and taxing them was a flawed approach. The reviewing authority misinterpreted the BTA and the MVAT Act, leading to an illegal order. The Court held that the slump sale did not amount to sale of goods u/s the MVAT Act, and set aside the impugned order. The petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.