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...
Assessees subjected to search u/s 132 prior to March 31, 2021, retained the right to file applications for settlement before the Interim Settlement Board, provided such applications were filed on or before September 30, 2021. The Explanation Clauses accompanying the deleted provisos in Section 245A(b) cannot restrict the definition of 'case' after the deletion of provisos. Accepting the Revenue's interpretation would defeat the legislative intent behind deleting the provisos. The right to approach the Settlement Commission vested in eligible assessees until the Finance Act, 2021 amendments remained enforceable. The High Court concurred with the Bombay High Court's view in Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Ltd. and Vishwakarma Developers cases. Consequently, orders by the Interim Settlement Board finding applications for settlement filed by petitioners as not maintainable stand set aside if the search u/s 132 was prior to March 31, 2021, and applications were filed by September 30, 2021.
Assessees subjected to search u/s 132 prior to March 31, 2021, retained the right to file applications for settlement before the Interim Settlement Board, provided such applications were filed on or before September 30, 2021. The Explanation Clauses accompanying the deleted provisos in Section 245A(b) cannot restrict the definition of 'case' after the deletion of provisos. Accepting the Revenue's interpretation would defeat the legislative intent behind deleting the provisos. The right to approach the Settlement Commission vested in eligible assessees until the Finance Act, 2021 amendments remained enforceable. The High Court concurred with the Bombay High Court's view in Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Ltd. and Vishwakarma Developers cases. Consequently, orders by the Interim Settlement Board finding applications for settlement filed by petitioners as not maintainable stand set aside if the search u/s 132 was prior to March 31, 2021, and applications were filed by September 30, 2021.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
