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 petitioner, acting under Section 23A of the Sand Act, 2001, exercised quasi-judicial powers in ordering the confiscation of vehicles used for illegal transportation. The court applied established criteria to determine that the petitioner's functions involved declaring rights and imposing obligations affecting civil rights, with procedural safeguards including opportunities to present evidence and legal arguments. Given that the statute provided for revision and appeal, the order was classified as quasi-judicial rather than executive or administrative. Consequently, the petitioner was entitled to protection under Sections 2(a) and 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. The FIR alleging illegal exercise of power and collusion was held unsustainable in law. The petition was allowed, quashing the FIR against the petitioner.
The HC held that the petitioner, acting under Section 23A of the Sand Act, 2001, exercised quasi-judicial powers in ordering the confiscation of vehicles used for illegal transportation. The court applied established criteria to determine that the petitioner's functions involved declaring rights and imposing obligations affecting civil rights, with procedural safeguards including opportunities to present evidence and legal arguments. Given that the statute provided for revision and appeal, the order was classified as quasi-judicial rather than executive or administrative. Consequently, the petitioner was entitled to protection under Sections 2(a) and 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. The FIR alleging illegal exercise of power and collusion was held unsustainable in law. The petition was allowed, quashing the FIR against the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
