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 held that the impugned order was vitiated by violation of natural justice, as the respondent failed to comply with the CBIC Circular mandating three personal hearings with sufficient intervals and separate notices for each. The petitioner's reply dated 18.05.2024, which contested the classification, was improperly disregarded despite being received well before the order dated 17.10.2024. The respondent erroneously stated no reply was received, indicating non-application of mind. Consequently, the HC set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the respondent to conduct three personal hearings in compliance with the Circular and principles of natural justice within a timeframe fixed by the Court. The petition was allowed accordingly.
The HC held that the impugned order was vitiated by violation of natural justice, as the respondent failed to comply with the CBIC Circular mandating three personal hearings with sufficient intervals and separate notices for each. The petitioner's reply dated 18.05.2024, which contested the classification, was improperly disregarded despite being received well before the order dated 17.10.2024. The respondent erroneously stated no reply was received, indicating non-application of mind. Consequently, the HC set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the respondent to conduct three personal hearings in compliance with the Circular and principles of natural justice within a timeframe fixed by the Court. The petition was allowed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
