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...
Petitioner challenged recovery of differential Central Excise Duty by enhancing assessable value for bought-out items directly supplied to customers. Respondents failed to adjudicate show cause notice for six years, citing implementation of GST as reason. Court held justification unacceptable as Petitioner attended proceedings post-GST introduction. Respondents provided no evidence of department's non-functioning during GST implementation. Relegating Petitioner to attend delayed show cause notice would be unfair, unreasonable, and abuse of power. High Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226, disposing of the petition.
Petitioner challenged recovery of differential Central Excise Duty by enhancing assessable value for bought-out items directly supplied to customers. Respondents failed to adjudicate show cause notice for six years, citing implementation of GST as reason. Court held justification unacceptable as Petitioner attended proceedings post-GST introduction. Respondents provided no evidence of department's non-functioning during GST implementation. Relegating Petitioner to attend delayed show cause notice would be unfair, unreasonable, and abuse of power. High Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226, disposing of the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.