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...
HC determined that the transfer of a rice mill occurred upon execution of the sale agreement on 13.12.2016, not the registered sale deed on 21.3.2018. Relying on SC precedent in a similar case, the court held that the transaction enabling enjoyment of immovable property constitutes a transfer under section 2(47)(vi). The tribunal's initial conclusion was incorrect, as the entire sale consideration was paid at agreement execution, and the assessee was put in possession of the property. Consequently, the HC allowed the appeal, set aside the tribunal's order, and answered substantial legal questions in favor of the assessee.
HC determined that the transfer of a rice mill occurred upon execution of the sale agreement on 13.12.2016, not the registered sale deed on 21.3.2018. Relying on SC precedent in a similar case, the court held that the transaction enabling enjoyment of immovable property constitutes a transfer under section 2(47)(vi). The tribunal's initial conclusion was incorrect, as the entire sale consideration was paid at agreement execution, and the assessee was put in possession of the property. Consequently, the HC allowed the appeal, set aside the tribunal's order, and answered substantial legal questions in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.