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...
Criminal proceedings involving allegations of fraudulent activities in an IPO were challenged. The validity hinged on whether a Single Judge or Division Bench should hear the case after SEBI settlement. The Supreme Court held that since a previous Division Bench had rejected the respondent's contentions, the present matter should have been heard by a Division Bench, not a Single Judge. The court refrained from commenting on merits to avoid prejudicing parties. It set aside the Single Judge's order quashing proceedings post-SEBI settlement and remanded the case to the Bombay High Court's Division Bench for an independent decision on quashing, uninfluenced by previous orders. An interim stay on further proceedings was granted for four weeks, with liberty to seek extension/modification from the Division Bench, which must dispose of the matter expeditiously within three months.
Criminal proceedings involving allegations of fraudulent activities in an IPO were challenged. The validity hinged on whether a Single Judge or Division Bench should hear the case after SEBI settlement. The Supreme Court held that since a previous Division Bench had rejected the respondent's contentions, the present matter should have been heard by a Division Bench, not a Single Judge. The court refrained from commenting on merits to avoid prejudicing parties. It set aside the Single Judge's order quashing proceedings post-SEBI settlement and remanded the case to the Bombay High Court's Division Bench for an independent decision on quashing, uninfluenced by previous orders. An interim stay on further proceedings was granted for four weeks, with liberty to seek extension/modification from the Division Bench, which must dispose of the matter expeditiously within three months.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
