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 High Court held that the petitioners have the option to file writ petitions challenging the orders of the Revisionary Authority either before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the original adjudication occurred or before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Revisionary Authority is located. The doctrine of merger and the principle of forum conveniens allow the petitioners to choose the appropriate forum. Even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, it will have jurisdiction. However, this factor alone may not compel the High Court to decide the matter on merits. Since the Revisionary Authority is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of the High Court, the petitioners have the right to file the petitions there. The principle of merger dictates that a writ against an appellate order would lie before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Appellate Authority is located. The High Court held that the present petitions are maintainable before its Principal Seat as the orders of the adjudicating authorities have merged into the impugned orders of the Revisionary Authority located in its jurisdiction.
The High Court held that the petitioners have the option to file writ petitions challenging the orders of the Revisionary Authority either before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the original adjudication occurred or before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Revisionary Authority is located. The doctrine of merger and the principle of forum conveniens allow the petitioners to choose the appropriate forum. Even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, it will have jurisdiction. However, this factor alone may not compel the High Court to decide the matter on merits. Since the Revisionary Authority is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of the High Court, the petitioners have the right to file the petitions there. The principle of merger dictates that a writ against an appellate order would lie before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Appellate Authority is located. The High Court held that the present petitions are maintainable before its Principal Seat as the orders of the adjudicating authorities have merged into the impugned orders of the Revisionary Authority located in its jurisdiction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
