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...
SC addressed maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226 against MSEFC orders under MSMED Act 2006. The Court determined that while MSMED Act establishes mandatory statutory arbitration with specific provisions for interest rates and pre-deposits, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remains a constitutional right and part of basic structure. The matter raised complex questions regarding absolute bar on writ jurisdiction, exceptions to alternative remedy doctrine, and propriety of MSEFC members serving as both conciliators and arbitrators. Due to significance, SC referred these questions to a five-judge bench, maintaining that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and not automatically barred by alternative remedies. Final determination pending larger bench consideration.
SC addressed maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226 against MSEFC orders under MSMED Act 2006. The Court determined that while MSMED Act establishes mandatory statutory arbitration with specific provisions for interest rates and pre-deposits, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remains a constitutional right and part of basic structure. The matter raised complex questions regarding absolute bar on writ jurisdiction, exceptions to alternative remedy doctrine, and propriety of MSEFC members serving as both conciliators and arbitrators. Due to significance, SC referred these questions to a five-judge bench, maintaining that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and not automatically barred by alternative remedies. Final determination pending larger bench consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
