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 HC quashed the impugned hearing notice dated 18.09.2024 issued by respondent no. 5. Reinitiation of adjudication proceedings after a gap of nine years is time-barred u/s 73(4B) of the Finance Act. The delay in not concluding the hearing qua the impugned show cause notice dated 21.04.2015 within the stipulated time period is unreasonable. The pendency of an appeal in another case on an identical issue before the CESTAT cannot justify keeping the present proceedings in abeyance. The HC held that Section 73(4B) requires proceedings to be concluded within six months/one year, and extending the same to nine years in the given facts is unreasonable. The petition is disposed of.
The HC quashed the impugned hearing notice dated 18.09.2024 issued by respondent no. 5. Reinitiation of adjudication proceedings after a gap of nine years is time-barred u/s 73(4B) of the Finance Act. The delay in not concluding the hearing qua the impugned show cause notice dated 21.04.2015 within the stipulated time period is unreasonable. The pendency of an appeal in another case on an identical issue before the CESTAT cannot justify keeping the present proceedings in abeyance. The HC held that Section 73(4B) requires proceedings to be concluded within six months/one year, and extending the same to nine years in the given facts is unreasonable. The petition is disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
