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 held that appellant was eligible for benefits under Karasamadhana Scheme, 2021, despite subsequent initiation of suo-motu revision proceedings under Section 64(1) of KVAT Act. Court ruled that Clause 5.7 of the scheme only disqualifies dealers against whom revision proceedings were already initiated before the scheme's notification date. Since no suo-motu revision was pending when the scheme was introduced, and appellant's application was accepted with order passed in their favor, subsequent initiation of revisional proceedings would defeat the scheme's purpose and object. Permitting post-acceptance revision would render the scheme arbitrary and unreasonable. Appeal allowed in favor of assessee-appellant.
HC held that appellant was eligible for benefits under Karasamadhana Scheme, 2021, despite subsequent initiation of suo-motu revision proceedings under Section 64(1) of KVAT Act. Court ruled that Clause 5.7 of the scheme only disqualifies dealers against whom revision proceedings were already initiated before the scheme's notification date. Since no suo-motu revision was pending when the scheme was introduced, and appellant's application was accepted with order passed in their favor, subsequent initiation of revisional proceedings would defeat the scheme's purpose and object. Permitting post-acceptance revision would render the scheme arbitrary and unreasonable. Appeal allowed in favor of assessee-appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.