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 allowed the petition challenging the rejection of benefits under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. Multiple HCs, including Madras, Bombay, Gujarat, and Delhi, have consistently held that technical delays in payment due to COVID-19 pandemic should not disqualify applicants. The court found that denying scheme benefits would be contrary to the scheme's objectives and unjust to the eligible declarant. The impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim was quashed, with directions to accept the payment and issue a discharge certificate. The time limit provisions were deemed directive in nature, allowing flexibility in implementation.
HC allowed the petition challenging the rejection of benefits under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. Multiple HCs, including Madras, Bombay, Gujarat, and Delhi, have consistently held that technical delays in payment due to COVID-19 pandemic should not disqualify applicants. The court found that denying scheme benefits would be contrary to the scheme's objectives and unjust to the eligible declarant. The impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim was quashed, with directions to accept the payment and issue a discharge certificate. The time limit provisions were deemed directive in nature, allowing flexibility in implementation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
