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 ITAT held that NDDB, as a statutory corporation, is not a company under the Companies Act and therefore Section 115JB (MAT) is inapplicable. The tribunal found that the assessee prepares accounts under NDDB Act, lacks shareholders, and does not meet MAT conditions. The rectification order attempting to impose MAT was deemed illegal and without jurisdiction. The AO's subsequent action to impose MAT after originally accepting returns constitutes a change of opinion, which cannot be rectified under Section 154. The tribunal conclusively ruled that MAT is not leviable for statutory corporations, even post-2012 amendment, and quashed the rectification order.
The ITAT held that NDDB, as a statutory corporation, is not a company under the Companies Act and therefore Section 115JB (MAT) is inapplicable. The tribunal found that the assessee prepares accounts under NDDB Act, lacks shareholders, and does not meet MAT conditions. The rectification order attempting to impose MAT was deemed illegal and without jurisdiction. The AO's subsequent action to impose MAT after originally accepting returns constitutes a change of opinion, which cannot be rectified under Section 154. The tribunal conclusively ruled that MAT is not leviable for statutory corporations, even post-2012 amendment, and quashed the rectification order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.