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 dismissed the petition seeking direction to issue a discharge certificate under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The petitioner had availed the scheme's benefit but failed to make the payment within the prescribed time limit of June 30, 2020. The court held that extending the payment date would amount to modifying the scheme, which is impermissible under the law. The Supreme Court's decision in M/S. YASHI CONSTRUCTIONS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. was cited, which stated that a person availing a scheme's benefits must strictly abide by its terms and conditions. Since the petitioner did not comply with the scheme's terms, the court found no reason to interfere and dismissed the petition.
The High Court dismissed the petition seeking direction to issue a discharge certificate under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The petitioner had availed the scheme's benefit but failed to make the payment within the prescribed time limit of June 30, 2020. The court held that extending the payment date would amount to modifying the scheme, which is impermissible under the law. The Supreme Court's decision in M/S. YASHI CONSTRUCTIONS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. was cited, which stated that a person availing a scheme's benefits must strictly abide by its terms and conditions. Since the petitioner did not comply with the scheme's terms, the court found no reason to interfere and dismissed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
