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...
NCLAT dismissed appeals seeking compensation for delayed possession and increased costs of EWS flats. Appellants claimed Rs. 42,42,000/- each, including rental damages, mental agony, interest on deposits, and litigation expenses. The tribunal held that compensation under Section 42A and 53N(1) of Competition Act is payable only for violation of CCI orders, which was not established. Despite CCI finding respondent's abuse of dominant position in the relevant geographic market, appellants' prior consent to cost enhancement barred their challenge. Claims for monthly rental of Rs. 10,000 and other damages were deemed unconvincing, particularly given the EWS qualification criteria of Rs. 25,000 annual income ceiling.
NCLAT dismissed appeals seeking compensation for delayed possession and increased costs of EWS flats. Appellants claimed Rs. 42,42,000/- each, including rental damages, mental agony, interest on deposits, and litigation expenses. The tribunal held that compensation under Section 42A and 53N(1) of Competition Act is payable only for violation of CCI orders, which was not established. Despite CCI finding respondent's abuse of dominant position in the relevant geographic market, appellants' prior consent to cost enhancement barred their challenge. Claims for monthly rental of Rs. 10,000 and other damages were deemed unconvincing, particularly given the EWS qualification criteria of Rs. 25,000 annual income ceiling.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
