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 filed by a sleeping partner seeking disclosure of information obtained during search and seizure under section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act for use in private arbitration proceedings against co-partners. The court held that the petitioner, not being bonafidely entitled to the information and seeking it solely for personal defence in arbitration, failed to demonstrate any public interest or justifiable ground for relief. The Act and rules do not authorize disclosure of such information to third parties absent clear statutory mandate. Information collected during search and seizure cannot be released for private disputes, and no writ of mandamus can compel the respondents to provide it. However, if such information is used by authorities against the petitioner in prosecution, he would be entitled to it, a circumstance not present here.
The HC dismissed the writ petition filed by a sleeping partner seeking disclosure of information obtained during search and seizure under section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act for use in private arbitration proceedings against co-partners. The court held that the petitioner, not being bonafidely entitled to the information and seeking it solely for personal defence in arbitration, failed to demonstrate any public interest or justifiable ground for relief. The Act and rules do not authorize disclosure of such information to third parties absent clear statutory mandate. Information collected during search and seizure cannot be released for private disputes, and no writ of mandamus can compel the respondents to provide it. However, if such information is used by authorities against the petitioner in prosecution, he would be entitled to it, a circumstance not present here.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
