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 dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of an application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that such orders are not appealable before the Tribunal under Section 253. The petitioner's sole remedy lies in filing an appeal under Section 246 against the intimation issued under Section 143(1). Noting a prima facie error in failing to file Form 67 as mandated by Rule 128, the court acknowledged the appellate Commissioner's authority under Section 249(3) to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Applying the Limitation Act's Section 14, the petitioner was granted relief for delay caused by pursuing an incorrect remedy. The petition was disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to file the appeal against the Section 143(1) intimation before the appellate Commissioner within 30 days of the order's receipt.
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of an application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that such orders are not appealable before the Tribunal under Section 253. The petitioner's sole remedy lies in filing an appeal under Section 246 against the intimation issued under Section 143(1). Noting a prima facie error in failing to file Form 67 as mandated by Rule 128, the court acknowledged the appellate Commissioner's authority under Section 249(3) to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Applying the Limitation Act's Section 14, the petitioner was granted relief for delay caused by pursuing an incorrect remedy. The petition was disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to file the appeal against the Section 143(1) intimation before the appellate Commissioner within 30 days of the order's receipt.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
