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 rejected applicant's reference application under Chhattisgarh Value Added Sales Tax Act, 2005. Applicant failed to produce mandatory Form 3 for eight years to discharge burden of proof regarding sub-contractor's tax payment on turnover. Court held that reference jurisdiction is purely advisory and consultative, requiring substantial question of law under Section 55(2). Payment of tax by sub-contractor remained disputed question of fact, not law, as Form 3 was not produced within statutory timeframe. No statutory duty exists compelling Department to grant indefinite extensions for Form 3 submission. Absence of Form 3 negated double taxation concerns. Court distinguished between questions of fact versus law, concluding no legal question arose warranting HC's adjudication in reference proceedings.
HC rejected applicant's reference application under Chhattisgarh Value Added Sales Tax Act, 2005. Applicant failed to produce mandatory Form 3 for eight years to discharge burden of proof regarding sub-contractor's tax payment on turnover. Court held that reference jurisdiction is purely advisory and consultative, requiring substantial question of law under Section 55(2). Payment of tax by sub-contractor remained disputed question of fact, not law, as Form 3 was not produced within statutory timeframe. No statutory duty exists compelling Department to grant indefinite extensions for Form 3 submission. Absence of Form 3 negated double taxation concerns. Court distinguished between questions of fact versus law, concluding no legal question arose warranting HC's adjudication in reference proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.