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 SC set aside the High Court's order awarding 15% interest on refund amount to a home buyer and restored NCDRC's order granting 9% interest. The Court found that while the buyer was entitled to refund due to significant construction delays, the 15% interest rate was excessive. Applying precedent from Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank, the Court determined that purchasers deserve reasonable interest when possession is delayed, but distinguished this case from Rohit Chaudhary v. Vipul Ltd., noting different circumstances. The compensation was reduced from 10,00,000 to 7,50,000, balancing justice considerations and the appellant's status as a state instrumentality. The appeal was partly allowed.
The SC set aside the High Court's order awarding 15% interest on refund amount to a home buyer and restored NCDRC's order granting 9% interest. The Court found that while the buyer was entitled to refund due to significant construction delays, the 15% interest rate was excessive. Applying precedent from Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank, the Court determined that purchasers deserve reasonable interest when possession is delayed, but distinguished this case from Rohit Chaudhary v. Vipul Ltd., noting different circumstances. The compensation was reduced from 10,00,000 to 7,50,000, balancing justice considerations and the appellant's status as a state instrumentality. The appeal was partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
