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...
Employer deducted tax at source from petitioners' salaries but failed to deposit it with the government. Court held that u/s 205 of the Income Tax Act and CBDT instructions, no demand can be raised against deductees for deductor's failure to deposit TDS. Impugned intimation u/s 143(1) raising demand against petitioners quashed. Authorities directed to ensure strict compliance with Section 205 and CBDT instructions, and rectify software to prevent such demands against deductees. Technology cannot cause inconvenience contrary to law and binding instructions, resulting in human helplessness and technological slavery. Case highlights technology's failure to consider statutory provisions and binding instructions.
Employer deducted tax at source from petitioners' salaries but failed to deposit it with the government. Court held that u/s 205 of the Income Tax Act and CBDT instructions, no demand can be raised against deductees for deductor's failure to deposit TDS. Impugned intimation u/s 143(1) raising demand against petitioners quashed. Authorities directed to ensure strict compliance with Section 205 and CBDT instructions, and rectify software to prevent such demands against deductees. Technology cannot cause inconvenience contrary to law and binding instructions, resulting in human helplessness and technological slavery. Case highlights technology's failure to consider statutory provisions and binding instructions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
