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 respondent-company purchased a flat for residential use of its director and family, not for commercial purposes. The appellant-builder wrongfully cancelled the flat allotment and forfeited the deposited amount. The complaint was maintainable as the respondent qualified as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act. The appellant was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The NCDRC rightly directed refund of the forfeited amount with interest. The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC order, directing partial refund within two weeks and the balance by 31st December 2024, failing which recovery as arrears of land revenue.
The respondent-company purchased a flat for residential use of its director and family, not for commercial purposes. The appellant-builder wrongfully cancelled the flat allotment and forfeited the deposited amount. The complaint was maintainable as the respondent qualified as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act. The appellant was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The NCDRC rightly directed refund of the forfeited amount with interest. The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC order, directing partial refund within two weeks and the balance by 31st December 2024, failing which recovery as arrears of land revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
