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...
Qualification criteria for being an 'informant' under the Income Tax Informants Reward Scheme, 2018. The key points are: the information provided by the petitioner regarding cash deposits and repayment of deposits in violation of Sections 269SS and 269T was already known to the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be considered as 'undisclosed income and wealth' eligible for reward under the Scheme. Additionally, the information did not lead to the detection of 'substantial tax evasion', which is a prerequisite for receiving the reward. The High Court held that since the transactions were reflected in the books and examined during assessment, the information provided by the petitioner was not new or undisclosed. The Tribunal's findings also did not support allegations of undisclosed income and tax evasion. Consequently, the petitioner's claim for a reward was rejected.
Qualification criteria for being an 'informant' under the Income Tax Informants Reward Scheme, 2018. The key points are: the information provided by the petitioner regarding cash deposits and repayment of deposits in violation of Sections 269SS and 269T was already known to the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be considered as 'undisclosed income and wealth' eligible for reward under the Scheme. Additionally, the information did not lead to the detection of 'substantial tax evasion', which is a prerequisite for receiving the reward. The High Court held that since the transactions were reflected in the books and examined during assessment, the information provided by the petitioner was not new or undisclosed. The Tribunal's findings also did not support allegations of undisclosed income and tax evasion. Consequently, the petitioner's claim for a reward was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
