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 held that the period of limitation under Section 153B for assessment orders cannot be automatically excluded when exchange of information occurs. The exclusion is contingent upon a formal reference made strictly in accordance with the Indo-Swiss Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). In this instance, the revenue's request did not comply with Article 14 of the Amending Protocol. Consequently, the court ruled against the revenue, determining that the time taken for obtaining information cannot be unilaterally excluded from the limitation period. The assessment orders were thus challenged, with the legal questions being answered in favor of the assessees and against the revenue's interpretation of procedural limitations.
HC held that the period of limitation under Section 153B for assessment orders cannot be automatically excluded when exchange of information occurs. The exclusion is contingent upon a formal reference made strictly in accordance with the Indo-Swiss Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). In this instance, the revenue's request did not comply with Article 14 of the Amending Protocol. Consequently, the court ruled against the revenue, determining that the time taken for obtaining information cannot be unilaterally excluded from the limitation period. The assessment orders were thus challenged, with the legal questions being answered in favor of the assessees and against the revenue's interpretation of procedural limitations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.