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...
Property forfeited under SAFEMA was also subject to TADA proceedings. The court held that TADA provisions are distinct from SAFEMA, citing a previous Supreme Court judgment. Declaratory suits filed by the Appellant in the Bombay High Court have no bearing on the SAFEMA proceedings. The validity of the notice u/s 6 of SAFEMA does not require establishing a nexus between the Detenue's income and the property. The appeal challenging the impugned order was rejected. The principles of natural justice were not violated despite the final hearing being brief and decided by the same Authority. The property in question, Aqdas Mahal, was acquired structurally, but without supporting loan agreements. The Appellant failed to provide evidence of the property's source of acquisition. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal.
Property forfeited under SAFEMA was also subject to TADA proceedings. The court held that TADA provisions are distinct from SAFEMA, citing a previous Supreme Court judgment. Declaratory suits filed by the Appellant in the Bombay High Court have no bearing on the SAFEMA proceedings. The validity of the notice u/s 6 of SAFEMA does not require establishing a nexus between the Detenue's income and the property. The appeal challenging the impugned order was rejected. The principles of natural justice were not violated despite the final hearing being brief and decided by the same Authority. The property in question, Aqdas Mahal, was acquired structurally, but without supporting loan agreements. The Appellant failed to provide evidence of the property's source of acquisition. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
