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 assessee was in default u/s 201(1) for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194LBC on the Excess Interest Spread (EIS) paid to the Originator. The CIT(A) held that since the Originator did not subscribe to any Pass-Through Certificates (PTCs), it cannot be termed as an 'investor' u/s 194LBC read with Section 115TCA, and no investment was made by the Originator. Therefore, the provisions of Section 194LBC were not attracted. The ITAT, relying on previous decisions, observed that the issue had been extensively dealt with by the jurisdictional coordinate bench, which had taken a view in support of the assessee. Finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, the ITAT dismissed the grounds of appeal.
The assessee was in default u/s 201(1) for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194LBC on the Excess Interest Spread (EIS) paid to the Originator. The CIT(A) held that since the Originator did not subscribe to any Pass-Through Certificates (PTCs), it cannot be termed as an 'investor' u/s 194LBC read with Section 115TCA, and no investment was made by the Originator. Therefore, the provisions of Section 194LBC were not attracted. The ITAT, relying on previous decisions, observed that the issue had been extensively dealt with by the jurisdictional coordinate bench, which had taken a view in support of the assessee. Finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, the ITAT dismissed the grounds of appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.