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 HC quashed a penalty order under Section 271AA(1) for violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner challenged the order on grounds that it was passed by an officer who did not conduct the video conference hearing. The court held that personal hearing is essential and cannot be substituted by written arguments, emphasizing that the officer who hears the assessee must be the same who decides the matter. Relying on established precedent, the court ruled that when one person hears and another decides, personal hearing becomes an empty formality. The court directed respondents to ensure compliance with faceless procedure requirements under the amended scheme, mandating that assessing officers conducting video conferences must pass the corresponding orders. The penalty order was set aside and matter remanded for fresh hearing and decision.
The HC quashed a penalty order under Section 271AA(1) for violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner challenged the order on grounds that it was passed by an officer who did not conduct the video conference hearing. The court held that personal hearing is essential and cannot be substituted by written arguments, emphasizing that the officer who hears the assessee must be the same who decides the matter. Relying on established precedent, the court ruled that when one person hears and another decides, personal hearing becomes an empty formality. The court directed respondents to ensure compliance with faceless procedure requirements under the amended scheme, mandating that assessing officers conducting video conferences must pass the corresponding orders. The penalty order was set aside and matter remanded for fresh hearing and decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
