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...
HC upheld the validity of CBDT's corrigendum notification dated 5 January 2011 restricting deductions u/s 80IB(10) for slum redevelopment projects approved between 1 April 2004 and 31 March 2008. The court determined the notification properly aligned with legislative intent, as the proviso for slum redevelopment schemes was introduced prospectively from 1 April 2005. The amendment's reference to past events did not make it retrospective in nature. The petitioner's challenge claiming the notification was ultra vires failed, as the court found no legislative intention for retrospective application of the benefits. The deduction claim was rejected for non-compliance with notification conditions.
HC upheld the validity of CBDT's corrigendum notification dated 5 January 2011 restricting deductions u/s 80IB(10) for slum redevelopment projects approved between 1 April 2004 and 31 March 2008. The court determined the notification properly aligned with legislative intent, as the proviso for slum redevelopment schemes was introduced prospectively from 1 April 2005. The amendment's reference to past events did not make it retrospective in nature. The petitioner's challenge claiming the notification was ultra vires failed, as the court found no legislative intention for retrospective application of the benefits. The deduction claim was rejected for non-compliance with notification conditions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
