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 dismissed the SLP challenging the High Court's refusal to direct the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to admit petitioners' appeal without mandatory pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The High Court had correctly held that petitioners failed to challenge the original order and instead filed an appeal without the statutory pre-deposit requirement. When the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit provisions, petitioners sought relief under Article 226, which the High Court properly declined as it would contravene statutory requirements. The SC found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's discretionary jurisdiction exercise, affirming that courts cannot grant relief contrary to express statutory provisions through constitutional writ jurisdiction.
The SC dismissed the SLP challenging the High Court's refusal to direct the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to admit petitioners' appeal without mandatory pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The High Court had correctly held that petitioners failed to challenge the original order and instead filed an appeal without the statutory pre-deposit requirement. When the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit provisions, petitioners sought relief under Article 226, which the High Court properly declined as it would contravene statutory requirements. The SC found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's discretionary jurisdiction exercise, affirming that courts cannot grant relief contrary to express statutory provisions through constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
