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...
Revision application u/s 264 was initially rejected due to non-payment of mandatory fee of Rs. 500. However, the petitioner paid the fee immediately upon objection raised. The court held that the statutory requirement of Section 264(5) was sufficiently complied with by payment of fees, even if the filing date is considered as the date of fee payment. The decision relied upon by the respondent was inapplicable as no fees were paid in that case, whereas in the present case, fees were paid upon objection. The impugned order rejecting the revision application on technical grounds was quashed and the matter remanded to decide on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing within 12 weeks.
Revision application u/s 264 was initially rejected due to non-payment of mandatory fee of Rs. 500. However, the petitioner paid the fee immediately upon objection raised. The court held that the statutory requirement of Section 264(5) was sufficiently complied with by payment of fees, even if the filing date is considered as the date of fee payment. The decision relied upon by the respondent was inapplicable as no fees were paid in that case, whereas in the present case, fees were paid upon objection. The impugned order rejecting the revision application on technical grounds was quashed and the matter remanded to decide on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing within 12 weeks.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
