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 revisional authority's refusal to exercise jurisdiction under Section 264 was legally untenable. The authority's reasoning that revision was not maintainable because order was appealable and assessee had not filed appeal was contrary to law. Further, the authority's position that intimation under Section 143(1) was not amenable to revision jurisdiction was incorrect, as established in multiple precedents. The court set aside the impugned order dated February 12, 2021, finding both grounds for declining jurisdiction unsustainable. The revision petition was restored to be decided on merits by the revisional authority in accordance with law.
HC held that revisional authority's refusal to exercise jurisdiction under Section 264 was legally untenable. The authority's reasoning that revision was not maintainable because order was appealable and assessee had not filed appeal was contrary to law. Further, the authority's position that intimation under Section 143(1) was not amenable to revision jurisdiction was incorrect, as established in multiple precedents. The court set aside the impugned order dated February 12, 2021, finding both grounds for declining jurisdiction unsustainable. The revision petition was restored to be decided on merits by the revisional authority in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.