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...
Assessment order u/s 143(3) passed against an individual beneficiary, determining the primary assessee liable for taxation. The key points are: the assessment order was passed against the individual beneficiary, not the trust. Although the trust is the primary assessee u/s 160(1)(iv), the department can directly assess the beneficiary u/s 166. Since the assessment was framed against the beneficiary, the beneficiary should have filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), not the trust. The trust's appeal is dismissed, and the beneficiary is allowed to file a delayed appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who is directed to adopt a liberal approach regarding the delay. The issue pertains to the determination of the primary assessee liable for taxation and the unexplained cash deposits u/s 69A, where no source was provided.
Assessment order u/s 143(3) passed against an individual beneficiary, determining the primary assessee liable for taxation. The key points are: the assessment order was passed against the individual beneficiary, not the trust. Although the trust is the primary assessee u/s 160(1)(iv), the department can directly assess the beneficiary u/s 166. Since the assessment was framed against the beneficiary, the beneficiary should have filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), not the trust. The trust's appeal is dismissed, and the beneficiary is allowed to file a delayed appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who is directed to adopt a liberal approach regarding the delay. The issue pertains to the determination of the primary assessee liable for taxation and the unexplained cash deposits u/s 69A, where no source was provided.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.