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 quashed the impugned appellate order that partially cancelled MEIS scrips on the ground of excess availing, finding the Appellate Authority failed to apply its mind or provide reasons under Section 9(4) of the FTDR Act read with Rule 10 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. The court noted the retrospective cancellation was impermissible as the scrips had expired before initiation of cancellation proceedings. The alleged contravention related solely to foreign trade policy and did not satisfy the criteria under Rule 10(a), (b), or (c), with no proper justification under Rule 10(d). The matter was remanded to the first respondent for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and principles of natural justice, directing the authority to consider the grounds raised and record reasoned findings. The petitions were allowed by way of remand.
The HC quashed the impugned appellate order that partially cancelled MEIS scrips on the ground of excess availing, finding the Appellate Authority failed to apply its mind or provide reasons under Section 9(4) of the FTDR Act read with Rule 10 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. The court noted the retrospective cancellation was impermissible as the scrips had expired before initiation of cancellation proceedings. The alleged contravention related solely to foreign trade policy and did not satisfy the criteria under Rule 10(a), (b), or (c), with no proper justification under Rule 10(d). The matter was remanded to the first respondent for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and principles of natural justice, directing the authority to consider the grounds raised and record reasoned findings. The petitions were allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
