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 SC restrained investigating agencies from summoning defense counsel who represented an accused party, holding that such summons undermine legal profession autonomy and threaten judicial independence. The petitioner-advocate contended he was neither accused nor witness but merely discharged professional duties under Article 19(1)(g) constitutional rights and Section 132 BSA protections. The Court emphasized that permitting direct summons of defense counsel by investigating agencies would seriously compromise administration of justice. Notice was issued to Attorney General, Solicitor General, Bar Council of India, and Supreme Court bar associations for assistance. The respondent-State was restrained from summoning petitioner, with stay granted on the impugned notice dated 24.03.2025 and subsequent notices pending further orders from Chief Justice.
The SC restrained investigating agencies from summoning defense counsel who represented an accused party, holding that such summons undermine legal profession autonomy and threaten judicial independence. The petitioner-advocate contended he was neither accused nor witness but merely discharged professional duties under Article 19(1)(g) constitutional rights and Section 132 BSA protections. The Court emphasized that permitting direct summons of defense counsel by investigating agencies would seriously compromise administration of justice. Notice was issued to Attorney General, Solicitor General, Bar Council of India, and Supreme Court bar associations for assistance. The respondent-State was restrained from summoning petitioner, with stay granted on the impugned notice dated 24.03.2025 and subsequent notices pending further orders from Chief Justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
