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 set aside the order of the 1st respondent/Interim Board for Settlement-II rejecting the petitioner's third settlement application under section 245C. The Settlement Board had found non-disclosure of income relating to an alleged Rs. 18 Crores transaction from Smt. VK Sasikala, concluding the petitioner did not make full and true disclosure. However, the Adjudicating Authority had previously examined the transaction and concluded no such amount was received, a finding not considered by the Settlement Board. The HC held that the Settlement Board must base rejection on valid reasons and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in light of the Adjudicating Authority's findings. The impugned rejection order was quashed, and the 1st respondent was directed to reconsider the application afresh.
The HC set aside the order of the 1st respondent/Interim Board for Settlement-II rejecting the petitioner's third settlement application under section 245C. The Settlement Board had found non-disclosure of income relating to an alleged Rs. 18 Crores transaction from Smt. VK Sasikala, concluding the petitioner did not make full and true disclosure. However, the Adjudicating Authority had previously examined the transaction and concluded no such amount was received, a finding not considered by the Settlement Board. The HC held that the Settlement Board must base rejection on valid reasons and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in light of the Adjudicating Authority's findings. The impugned rejection order was quashed, and the 1st respondent was directed to reconsider the application afresh.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
