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 adjudicating authority is bound to explain the alleged contraventions to the person proceeded against or their legal representatives. Rule 4(4) mandates communicating the formation of opinion and reasons to the person or their legal representative. Rule 4(3) cannot be construed as violating natural justice or contravening any law when read with Rule 4(4), which requires providing all information along with the provisions. Rule 4(3) and Rule 4(4) should be read constructively to ensure fair opportunity. The High Court cannot expand the scope of rules/procedures under judicial review. The procedures must be followed, and persons concerned must cooperate and defend their case as per the rules. The practice of prolonging proceedings by approaching the High Court at each stage cannot be appreciated. The court is bound by the Madras High Court's Division Bench judgment interpreting Rule 4(3).
The adjudicating authority is bound to explain the alleged contraventions to the person proceeded against or their legal representatives. Rule 4(4) mandates communicating the formation of opinion and reasons to the person or their legal representative. Rule 4(3) cannot be construed as violating natural justice or contravening any law when read with Rule 4(4), which requires providing all information along with the provisions. Rule 4(3) and Rule 4(4) should be read constructively to ensure fair opportunity. The High Court cannot expand the scope of rules/procedures under judicial review. The procedures must be followed, and persons concerned must cooperate and defend their case as per the rules. The practice of prolonging proceedings by approaching the High Court at each stage cannot be appreciated. The court is bound by the Madras High Court's Division Bench judgment interpreting Rule 4(3).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
