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 held that pre-show cause consultation was not mandatory in tax evasion cases and extended 5-year limitation period under Section 73(1) applied when proceedings involved allegations of fraud or suppression. The Court declined to examine whether fraud existed, ruling this was within the Appellate Authority's domain. While Section 74(1) of CGST Act requires specific evidence of fraud or willful misstatement for invocation, the authority's reasonable belief formation was valid despite petitioner's non-response. The writ petition was dismissed as premature given available statutory appeal remedies. The Court emphasized that "where possible" timeframes for tax determination were directory, not mandatory, allowing proceedings to continue beyond prescribed periods.
HC held that pre-show cause consultation was not mandatory in tax evasion cases and extended 5-year limitation period under Section 73(1) applied when proceedings involved allegations of fraud or suppression. The Court declined to examine whether fraud existed, ruling this was within the Appellate Authority's domain. While Section 74(1) of CGST Act requires specific evidence of fraud or willful misstatement for invocation, the authority's reasonable belief formation was valid despite petitioner's non-response. The writ petition was dismissed as premature given available statutory appeal remedies. The Court emphasized that "where possible" timeframes for tax determination were directory, not mandatory, allowing proceedings to continue beyond prescribed periods.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
