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 an assessment order under s143(3) and penalty orders under s270A and s271AAD(1)(i) due to violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner received Annexure I to a show cause notice only two days before the scheduled hearing, insufficient time to respond adequately. Though the assessment was hurried to avoid statutory limitation under s153B, the court found procedural deficiencies warranting intervention. The court balanced interests by remitting the case back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration on merits. The court clarified that cross-examination of suppliers is only permissible when their statements are relied upon, and employee statements constitute admissions unless promptly retracted. The writ petition was allowed.
The HC quashed an assessment order under s143(3) and penalty orders under s270A and s271AAD(1)(i) due to violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner received Annexure I to a show cause notice only two days before the scheduled hearing, insufficient time to respond adequately. Though the assessment was hurried to avoid statutory limitation under s153B, the court found procedural deficiencies warranting intervention. The court balanced interests by remitting the case back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration on merits. The court clarified that cross-examination of suppliers is only permissible when their statements are relied upon, and employee statements constitute admissions unless promptly retracted. The writ petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.