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 ITAT set aside the order passed by the CIT/NFAC under section 250 in proceedings initiated under sections 147 read with 144 and 144B, concerning unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. The assessee failed to appear or submit written arguments before the CIT(A), who also did not issue a speaking order as required by section 250(6). Citing precedent, the ITAT held that the CIT(A) must dispose of the appeal on merits, even if ex parte. Consequently, the ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits and directed issuance of a speaking order in compliance with statutory requirements. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT set aside the order passed by the CIT/NFAC under section 250 in proceedings initiated under sections 147 read with 144 and 144B, concerning unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. The assessee failed to appear or submit written arguments before the CIT(A), who also did not issue a speaking order as required by section 250(6). Citing precedent, the ITAT held that the CIT(A) must dispose of the appeal on merits, even if ex parte. Consequently, the ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits and directed issuance of a speaking order in compliance with statutory requirements. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
