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...
This case deals with the deduction u/s 80DD of the Income Tax Act for maintaining and providing medical treatment to a dependent person with disability. The key points are: The petitioner sought retrospective application of an amendment to Section 80DD, allowing deduction for payment of annuity or lump sum for the benefit of a disabled dependent after the subscriber's death. The court rejected the plea for retrospective application, as it would go against the object of the insurance policy taken for the disabled person's benefit after the subscriber's demise. Giving retrospective effect would remove the substratum of the insurance contract, a commercial agreement with specific terms and conditions. The court considered various laws and conventions related to the rights and welfare of persons with disabilities. The grievance of the petitioner was addressed prospectively through the amendment to Section 80DD, as per the court's earlier order.
This case deals with the deduction u/s 80DD of the Income Tax Act for maintaining and providing medical treatment to a dependent person with disability. The key points are: The petitioner sought retrospective application of an amendment to Section 80DD, allowing deduction for payment of annuity or lump sum for the benefit of a disabled dependent after the subscriber's death. The court rejected the plea for retrospective application, as it would go against the object of the insurance policy taken for the disabled person's benefit after the subscriber's demise. Giving retrospective effect would remove the substratum of the insurance contract, a commercial agreement with specific terms and conditions. The court considered various laws and conventions related to the rights and welfare of persons with disabilities. The grievance of the petitioner was addressed prospectively through the amendment to Section 80DD, as per the court's earlier order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
