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...
Detention order at pre-execution stage was challenged on grounds of non-service at Nepal address, despite knowledge of address. Court relied on Supreme Court's ruling in Subhash Popatlal Dave, holding that those evading law cannot claim violation of fundamental rights. Petitioner was not available at any address in India for execution, and stand of service at Nepal address was untenable. Court opined that procedure under COFEPOSA Act for serving detention order is by detaining the person, failing which proceedings u/s 7 are initiated if detenue has absconded. Inference drawn that petitioner deliberately evaded service. Representation to detenue available post-execution under Article 22(5). No ground to interfere with detention order at pre-execution stage. Petition dismissed.
Detention order at pre-execution stage was challenged on grounds of non-service at Nepal address, despite knowledge of address. Court relied on Supreme Court's ruling in Subhash Popatlal Dave, holding that those evading law cannot claim violation of fundamental rights. Petitioner was not available at any address in India for execution, and stand of service at Nepal address was untenable. Court opined that procedure under COFEPOSA Act for serving detention order is by detaining the person, failing which proceedings u/s 7 are initiated if detenue has absconded. Inference drawn that petitioner deliberately evaded service. Representation to detenue available post-execution under Article 22(5). No ground to interfere with detention order at pre-execution stage. Petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
