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 HC allowed a petition filed by the deceased's son seeking refund as legal representative. The respondent erroneously rejected the petitioner's claim by questioning his capacity as legal representative of the deceased assessee. The Court held that the petitioner, being the deceased's son, clearly falls within the definition of "legal representative" under Section 2(29) of the IT Act and Section 2(11) of the CPC. The unchallenged will dated 28/07/1996 further supported his legal standing. Relying on Raghunathdas Kakani, the Court noted that IT Act provisions create a legal fiction keeping the deceased alive for tax purposes, making the legal representative responsible for payment. The respondent's doubt regarding petitioner's capacity was deemed erroneous, and the petition was allowed with the assessment claim accepted.
The HC allowed a petition filed by the deceased's son seeking refund as legal representative. The respondent erroneously rejected the petitioner's claim by questioning his capacity as legal representative of the deceased assessee. The Court held that the petitioner, being the deceased's son, clearly falls within the definition of "legal representative" under Section 2(29) of the IT Act and Section 2(11) of the CPC. The unchallenged will dated 28/07/1996 further supported his legal standing. Relying on Raghunathdas Kakani, the Court noted that IT Act provisions create a legal fiction keeping the deceased alive for tax purposes, making the legal representative responsible for payment. The respondent's doubt regarding petitioner's capacity was deemed erroneous, and the petition was allowed with the assessment claim accepted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
