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 dismissed petitioner's challenge to warrant of authorization regarding seizure of gold jewellery worth Rs. 1,07,70,042. Following seizure, Income Tax Authority served notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) of Income Tax Act, passed final assessment order on 24.12.2019 creating demand of Rs. 1.08 crores. Petitioner's appeal against assessment order was dismissed. Court held petitioner cannot challenge warrant of authorization after finalization of assessment proceedings and dismissal of appeal. Income Tax Authority properly rejected release application due to pending tax demand. Court ruled petition misconceived as proper remedy lies before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 132-B of Income Tax Act. Petition dismissed.
HC dismissed petitioner's challenge to warrant of authorization regarding seizure of gold jewellery worth Rs. 1,07,70,042. Following seizure, Income Tax Authority served notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) of Income Tax Act, passed final assessment order on 24.12.2019 creating demand of Rs. 1.08 crores. Petitioner's appeal against assessment order was dismissed. Court held petitioner cannot challenge warrant of authorization after finalization of assessment proceedings and dismissal of appeal. Income Tax Authority properly rejected release application due to pending tax demand. Court ruled petition misconceived as proper remedy lies before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 132-B of Income Tax Act. Petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
