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...
Delay in deposit of TDS led to a complaint against the company and its directors for an offense u/ss 276B and 278B. However, the TDS was deposited with interest u/s 201(1A). No notice was issued to treat any director as a 'Principal Officer' u/s 201(3), nor was any order passed deeming them 'assessee in default'. For the relevant assessment year, the company was held not to be an 'assessee in default'. No penalty was imposed on the company or directors u/s 221 for failure to pay tax. The directors' roles regarding consent, connivance, or negligence u/s 278B(2) were not established. Prosecuting the directors would amount to abuse of process when the revenue chose not to invoke Section 221 against the company or principal officer. Relying on K.C. Builders case, the petition was allowed.
Delay in deposit of TDS led to a complaint against the company and its directors for an offense u/ss 276B and 278B. However, the TDS was deposited with interest u/s 201(1A). No notice was issued to treat any director as a 'Principal Officer' u/s 201(3), nor was any order passed deeming them 'assessee in default'. For the relevant assessment year, the company was held not to be an 'assessee in default'. No penalty was imposed on the company or directors u/s 221 for failure to pay tax. The directors' roles regarding consent, connivance, or negligence u/s 278B(2) were not established. Prosecuting the directors would amount to abuse of process when the revenue chose not to invoke Section 221 against the company or principal officer. Relying on K.C. Builders case, the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
