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 suit for damages due to non-compliance with Section 80 CPC, which mandates a two-month prior notice before suing a public officer; absence of such notice rendered the suit barred and non-maintainable. However, the suit was not barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, as the Civil Court's jurisdiction to entertain claims for damages is wider than the limited scope of the SARFAESI Tribunal. The pendency of winding-up proceedings under the 1956 Act did not oust the Civil Court's jurisdiction. Although the plaintiff's authorized representative lacked authority regarding the company plaintiff, this did not warrant partial rejection of the plaint since other plaintiffs were represented. The court declined to consider new grounds related to the CIRP and resolution plan not raised below. The order permitting withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action under Order XXIII Rules 1 and 3 CPC was upheld.
The HC dismissed the suit for damages due to non-compliance with Section 80 CPC, which mandates a two-month prior notice before suing a public officer; absence of such notice rendered the suit barred and non-maintainable. However, the suit was not barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, as the Civil Court's jurisdiction to entertain claims for damages is wider than the limited scope of the SARFAESI Tribunal. The pendency of winding-up proceedings under the 1956 Act did not oust the Civil Court's jurisdiction. Although the plaintiff's authorized representative lacked authority regarding the company plaintiff, this did not warrant partial rejection of the plaint since other plaintiffs were represented. The court declined to consider new grounds related to the CIRP and resolution plan not raised below. The order permitting withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action under Order XXIII Rules 1 and 3 CPC was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
