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...
Detention order challenged due to non-supply of relevant WhatsApp chats, which were part of the evidence relied upon by the detaining authority. The High Court Division Bench rejected the detenue's contention, holding that non-supply of WhatsApp chats would not vitiate the detention order as the detaining authority had arrived at subjective satisfaction based on various documents. However, another Division Bench of the same High Court had taken a contrary view in identical cases involving other detenus. The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench should have followed the earlier view of the Coordinate Bench or referred the matter to a larger Bench if it disagreed. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the detention order and allowed the appeal.
Detention order challenged due to non-supply of relevant WhatsApp chats, which were part of the evidence relied upon by the detaining authority. The High Court Division Bench rejected the detenue's contention, holding that non-supply of WhatsApp chats would not vitiate the detention order as the detaining authority had arrived at subjective satisfaction based on various documents. However, another Division Bench of the same High Court had taken a contrary view in identical cases involving other detenus. The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench should have followed the earlier view of the Coordinate Bench or referred the matter to a larger Bench if it disagreed. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the detention order and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
