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 Supreme Court held that the acquisition proceedings failed to comply with the statutory requirement of paying full and final compensation to the landowners before taking possession of their land, as mandated by Section 38 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Court observed that the State of Himachal Pradesh regrettably took possession of the land before ensuring payment of compensation to the respondents, who had to approach the High Court for directions to pass a supplementary award. Additionally, Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, necessitates an agreement between the government and the company for whose purpose the land is acquired, ensuring payment towards the cost of acquisition by the company before the land transfer. However, in this case, the land was transferred to the company before determining the compensation amount through a supplementary award, contravening both statutory provisions. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court order and allowed the appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the acquisition proceedings failed to comply with the statutory requirement of paying full and final compensation to the landowners before taking possession of their land, as mandated by Section 38 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Court observed that the State of Himachal Pradesh regrettably took possession of the land before ensuring payment of compensation to the respondents, who had to approach the High Court for directions to pass a supplementary award. Additionally, Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, necessitates an agreement between the government and the company for whose purpose the land is acquired, ensuring payment towards the cost of acquisition by the company before the land transfer. However, in this case, the land was transferred to the company before determining the compensation amount through a supplementary award, contravening both statutory provisions. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court order and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
