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 service of ITAT order upon assessee's Chartered Accountant does not constitute sufficient service on the assessee under Section 260A appeal provisions. The statutory scheme requires ITAT to ensure direct communication to the assessee within the prescribed 120-day limitation period. Despite Revenue's contention that service on authorized representative suffices, the Court disagreed, emphasizing ITAT's mandatory obligation to serve copies directly on assessees. The Applicant's claim of ignorance regarding the 2016 order until receiving recovery notice in 2024 was accepted, as the CA could not confirm delivery to the assessee. Consequently, the 40-day delay in filing appeals was condoned, allowing determination on merits.
HC held that service of ITAT order upon assessee's Chartered Accountant does not constitute sufficient service on the assessee under Section 260A appeal provisions. The statutory scheme requires ITAT to ensure direct communication to the assessee within the prescribed 120-day limitation period. Despite Revenue's contention that service on authorized representative suffices, the Court disagreed, emphasizing ITAT's mandatory obligation to serve copies directly on assessees. The Applicant's claim of ignorance regarding the 2016 order until receiving recovery notice in 2024 was accepted, as the CA could not confirm delivery to the assessee. Consequently, the 40-day delay in filing appeals was condoned, allowing determination on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.