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 petitioner failed to deposit the required amount under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, despite receiving Form SVLDRS-3 from the respondent after considering Form SVLDRS-1 filed by the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner's reasons for non-payment were inconsequential, as the scheme's terms and conditions mandated payment within 30 days of issuing Form SVLDRS-3. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Yashi Constructions, the court ruled that modifying the scheme by extending the payment date is impermissible. The Bombay High Court's decision in Shri Arjun Amarjeet Rampal's case, involving a technical glitch, was distinguished as inapplicable. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for the petitioner's failure to comply with the scheme's terms and conditions.
The petitioner failed to deposit the required amount under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, despite receiving Form SVLDRS-3 from the respondent after considering Form SVLDRS-1 filed by the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner's reasons for non-payment were inconsequential, as the scheme's terms and conditions mandated payment within 30 days of issuing Form SVLDRS-3. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Yashi Constructions, the court ruled that modifying the scheme by extending the payment date is impermissible. The Bombay High Court's decision in Shri Arjun Amarjeet Rampal's case, involving a technical glitch, was distinguished as inapplicable. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for the petitioner's failure to comply with the scheme's terms and conditions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
