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 validity of Section 132 of Companies Act 2013 and NFRA Rules while addressing disciplinary proceedings against audit firms and partners. Court rejected challenges based on vicarious liability, finding that firms and partners share unified responsibility under Companies Act framework. Retroactive application challenge was dismissed as Section 132 merely modified enforcement mechanism without creating new liabilities. However, proceedings were invalidated due to procedural defects in NFRA's structure where same Executive Body both issued findings and initiated disciplinary action, violating principles of natural justice and creating reasonable likelihood of bias. Court emphasized need for separate divisions within NFRA to maintain procedural fairness and avoid predetermination in disciplinary matters.
HC upheld validity of Section 132 of Companies Act 2013 and NFRA Rules while addressing disciplinary proceedings against audit firms and partners. Court rejected challenges based on vicarious liability, finding that firms and partners share unified responsibility under Companies Act framework. Retroactive application challenge was dismissed as Section 132 merely modified enforcement mechanism without creating new liabilities. However, proceedings were invalidated due to procedural defects in NFRA's structure where same Executive Body both issued findings and initiated disciplinary action, violating principles of natural justice and creating reasonable likelihood of bias. Court emphasized need for separate divisions within NFRA to maintain procedural fairness and avoid predetermination in disciplinary matters.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
