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 the reference made by respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 2 under s. 92CA, along with the notice and approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax dated 24.12.2019. The court found that the petitioner was not provided a proper opportunity to be heard before the case transfer to the TPO, violating para 3.4 of Instruction No. 3 of 2016. The respondent hastily made the proposal on 24.12.2019 after issuing notice under s. 142(1) on 23.12.2019, giving minimal response time. The court determined the purported opportunity of hearing was merely an empty formality, resulting in breach of natural justice principles.
The HC quashed the reference made by respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 2 under s. 92CA, along with the notice and approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax dated 24.12.2019. The court found that the petitioner was not provided a proper opportunity to be heard before the case transfer to the TPO, violating para 3.4 of Instruction No. 3 of 2016. The respondent hastily made the proposal on 24.12.2019 after issuing notice under s. 142(1) on 23.12.2019, giving minimal response time. The court determined the purported opportunity of hearing was merely an empty formality, resulting in breach of natural justice principles.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
