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 upheld the validity of orders passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 22D(4) of the Wealth Tax Act. The court held that Settlement Commission members are appointed as government representatives with expertise and integrity to settle tax disputes, and the government cannot challenge decisions made by its own appointed representatives absent allegations of bias, fraud, or malice. The HC emphasized that courts discover existing law rather than create new rules, and subsequent judicial decisions clarifying legal principles operate retrospectively. Since no bias, fraud, or malice was alleged against the Settlement Commission's order, the government's challenge was rejected and the appeal was allowed.
The HC upheld the validity of orders passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 22D(4) of the Wealth Tax Act. The court held that Settlement Commission members are appointed as government representatives with expertise and integrity to settle tax disputes, and the government cannot challenge decisions made by its own appointed representatives absent allegations of bias, fraud, or malice. The HC emphasized that courts discover existing law rather than create new rules, and subsequent judicial decisions clarifying legal principles operate retrospectively. Since no bias, fraud, or malice was alleged against the Settlement Commission's order, the government's challenge was rejected and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
