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 determined that DRAT erred in remanding the matter to DRT for fresh consideration of jurisdiction and debt status under Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The DRAT failed to fulfill its appellate authority role by not addressing substantive legal issues raised before it, despite having sufficient factual material to decide HDFC's claims against Ashima and BBK. The court emphasized that remand orders should not be issued lightly, particularly in cases pending for nearly 20 years. The HC directed DRAT to decide the appeals on merits without further remand to DRT, noting that remand is only justified when re-trial is necessary or evidence is insufficient for disposition.
The HC determined that DRAT erred in remanding the matter to DRT for fresh consideration of jurisdiction and debt status under Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The DRAT failed to fulfill its appellate authority role by not addressing substantive legal issues raised before it, despite having sufficient factual material to decide HDFC's claims against Ashima and BBK. The court emphasized that remand orders should not be issued lightly, particularly in cases pending for nearly 20 years. The HC directed DRAT to decide the appeals on merits without further remand to DRT, noting that remand is only justified when re-trial is necessary or evidence is insufficient for disposition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
