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 set aside trial court's discharge of accused No. 2 (director) in prosecution under s276B of Income Tax Act. Court held specific notice under s2(35) unnecessary when show cause notice indicated directors would be considered principal officers. Company's reply acknowledged prosecution notices against principal officers regarding TDS remittance delays. Trial court erred in concluding directors were not in charge of company affairs despite specific complaint allegations and documentary evidence (Exs.P5-P9). Defense arguments about notice and management role cannot be considered at discharge stage. Following Madhumilan Syntex precedent, separate notice unnecessary when show cause notice identifies directors as principal officers. Matter remanded for trial per law.
HC set aside trial court's discharge of accused No. 2 (director) in prosecution under s276B of Income Tax Act. Court held specific notice under s2(35) unnecessary when show cause notice indicated directors would be considered principal officers. Company's reply acknowledged prosecution notices against principal officers regarding TDS remittance delays. Trial court erred in concluding directors were not in charge of company affairs despite specific complaint allegations and documentary evidence (Exs.P5-P9). Defense arguments about notice and management role cannot be considered at discharge stage. Following Madhumilan Syntex precedent, separate notice unnecessary when show cause notice identifies directors as principal officers. Matter remanded for trial per law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
