Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The case pertains to tax deducted at source (TDS) by the respondent from the petitioner's income but not deposited with the tax authorities. The petitioner claimed non-liability to pay tax deducted by the respondent, as reflected in Form 16A. The revenue pointed out adjustments for different assessment years. The court held that the adjustment for the assessment year 2017-18 was permissible, as the outstanding demand of Rs. 42,070 was recoverable. However, for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12, the adjustment was set aside in favor of the petitioner, following a previous decision. The impugned notices and order were set aside for those assessment years, and the revenue was directed to pass necessary consequential orders accordingly.
The case pertains to tax deducted at source (TDS) by the respondent from the petitioner's income but not deposited with the tax authorities. The petitioner claimed non-liability to pay tax deducted by the respondent, as reflected in Form 16A. The revenue pointed out adjustments for different assessment years. The court held that the adjustment for the assessment year 2017-18 was permissible, as the outstanding demand of Rs. 42,070 was recoverable. However, for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12, the adjustment was set aside in favor of the petitioner, following a previous decision. The impugned notices and order were set aside for those assessment years, and the revenue was directed to pass necessary consequential orders accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
