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 upheld the validity of notices issued under sections 142, 144, 144B, and 147 of the Income-tax Act, rejecting the petitioner's challenge based on alleged violation of natural justice. The court held that the Standard Operating Procedure prescribing seven days' response time constitutes mere administrative guidelines, not binding statutory requirements. Following Supreme Court precedent, the court applied the "prejudice test," determining that technical breach of natural justice does not vitiate an order unless actual prejudice is demonstrated. Despite receiving only four days instead of seven to respond to the show cause notice, the petitioner failed to establish any material prejudice, having received all statutory notices and obtained multiple adjournments but failing to submit responses. The reassessment proceedings were deemed valid.
The HC upheld the validity of notices issued under sections 142, 144, 144B, and 147 of the Income-tax Act, rejecting the petitioner's challenge based on alleged violation of natural justice. The court held that the Standard Operating Procedure prescribing seven days' response time constitutes mere administrative guidelines, not binding statutory requirements. Following Supreme Court precedent, the court applied the "prejudice test," determining that technical breach of natural justice does not vitiate an order unless actual prejudice is demonstrated. Despite receiving only four days instead of seven to respond to the show cause notice, the petitioner failed to establish any material prejudice, having received all statutory notices and obtained multiple adjournments but failing to submit responses. The reassessment proceedings were deemed valid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
