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 ITAT set aside the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A)/NFAC for non-compliance with section 249(4) regarding deposit of demand before filing the appeal. The appellant contended that a return of income was filed and the entire tax liability was satisfied through TDS. The tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC failed to consider the appellant's submission that the return was filed under a PAN allotted in the status of a firm, despite the appellant being a company, and did not provide an opportunity to explain this. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication with directions to verify the appellant's claims and admit the appeal if the conditions under section 249(4) are met.
The ITAT set aside the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A)/NFAC for non-compliance with section 249(4) regarding deposit of demand before filing the appeal. The appellant contended that a return of income was filed and the entire tax liability was satisfied through TDS. The tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC failed to consider the appellant's submission that the return was filed under a PAN allotted in the status of a firm, despite the appellant being a company, and did not provide an opportunity to explain this. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication with directions to verify the appellant's claims and admit the appeal if the conditions under section 249(4) are met.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
