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 disposed of writ petition seeking to quash seizure panchanamas of gold jewellery worth Rs.3.17 crores weighing 4698.81 grams claimed as stock-in-trade. Gold was initially seized by Railway Police Force and subsequently requisitioned by Deputy Director of Income Tax under Section 132A of IT Act. Petitioner filed application for release under Section 132B to DDIT(Inv.) instead of Assessing Officer as statutorily required. HC directed that application be decided by proper AO within six weeks, finding interest of justice required compliance with first proviso to Section 132B requiring application to AO rather than DDIT(Inv.).
HC disposed of writ petition seeking to quash seizure panchanamas of gold jewellery worth Rs.3.17 crores weighing 4698.81 grams claimed as stock-in-trade. Gold was initially seized by Railway Police Force and subsequently requisitioned by Deputy Director of Income Tax under Section 132A of IT Act. Petitioner filed application for release under Section 132B to DDIT(Inv.) instead of Assessing Officer as statutorily required. HC directed that application be decided by proper AO within six weeks, finding interest of justice required compliance with first proviso to Section 132B requiring application to AO rather than DDIT(Inv.).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
