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 High Court held that the petitioner, a Director in the Government of Meghalaya's Department of Soil, who claimed exemption from income tax u/s 10(26) as a member of a scheduled tribe, should avail the structured remedy provided by the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that as a writ court, it should not exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate upon highly disputed facts involving voluminous evidence. The petitioner had filed an application for revision u/s 264 for the assessment year 2014-15, which she allegedly withdrew on June 9, 2022. The court set aside the alleged withdrawal and directed the income tax authorities to treat the Section 264 application as pending, hear the petitioner, respondent No. 9, and other interested parties, and dispose of the application by a reasoned order within three months. The petitioner was given liberty to apply for interim orders pending the Section 264 proceedings.
The High Court held that the petitioner, a Director in the Government of Meghalaya's Department of Soil, who claimed exemption from income tax u/s 10(26) as a member of a scheduled tribe, should avail the structured remedy provided by the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that as a writ court, it should not exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate upon highly disputed facts involving voluminous evidence. The petitioner had filed an application for revision u/s 264 for the assessment year 2014-15, which she allegedly withdrew on June 9, 2022. The court set aside the alleged withdrawal and directed the income tax authorities to treat the Section 264 application as pending, hear the petitioner, respondent No. 9, and other interested parties, and dispose of the application by a reasoned order within three months. The petitioner was given liberty to apply for interim orders pending the Section 264 proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
