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...
SC determined the limitation period for filing a consumer complaint did not start from January 2015 when the indemnity undertaking was executed. While initial cause of action arose in July 2015 after six months expired, parties continued engagement through correspondence and meetings with respondent and escrow agent. The complaint's focus was securing title of already-possessed flats rather than seeking escrow release. NCDRC erred in its limitation calculation since appellants sought registration and prevention of third-party alienation, not flat possession. The limitation period applies differently when relief sought relates to title security of obtained property versus property acquisition. Appeal allowed, complaint deemed within time limitations.
SC determined the limitation period for filing a consumer complaint did not start from January 2015 when the indemnity undertaking was executed. While initial cause of action arose in July 2015 after six months expired, parties continued engagement through correspondence and meetings with respondent and escrow agent. The complaint's focus was securing title of already-possessed flats rather than seeking escrow release. NCDRC erred in its limitation calculation since appellants sought registration and prevention of third-party alienation, not flat possession. The limitation period applies differently when relief sought relates to title security of obtained property versus property acquisition. Appeal allowed, complaint deemed within time limitations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
