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...
The HC quashed orders demanding 10% pre-deposit of grant-in-aid as a precondition for considering the petitioner's representation. The Court determined that the demand lacked statutory foundation and was inappropriately imposed at the representation stage rather than appellate stage. The impugned orders were issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, violating the principle that no order resulting in civil consequences can be passed without such opportunity. The Court directed authorities to consider the petitioner's representation without requiring any pre-deposit within three months, while abstaining from commenting on the merits of the underlying cancellation order. The petition was allowed.
The HC quashed orders demanding 10% pre-deposit of grant-in-aid as a precondition for considering the petitioner's representation. The Court determined that the demand lacked statutory foundation and was inappropriately imposed at the representation stage rather than appellate stage. The impugned orders were issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, violating the principle that no order resulting in civil consequences can be passed without such opportunity. The Court directed authorities to consider the petitioner's representation without requiring any pre-deposit within three months, while abstaining from commenting on the merits of the underlying cancellation order. The petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
