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 SC allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and quashed the criminal prosecution initiated under s.276C(1) against the appellant. The Court held continuation of proceedings amounted to abuse of process because prosecuting authorities ignored binding departmental instructions (including the 24.04.2008 circular and subsequent confirmations) requiring an appellate finding where penalty for concealment exceeded Rs.50,000 and failed to demonstrate wilful evasion or ITAT determination of concealment before lodging complaint. In light of the Settlement Commission proceedings and the authorities' procedural non-compliance, the prosecution was held unlawful and liable to be quashed to vindicate fairness, consistency and accountability.
The SC allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and quashed the criminal prosecution initiated under s.276C(1) against the appellant. The Court held continuation of proceedings amounted to abuse of process because prosecuting authorities ignored binding departmental instructions (including the 24.04.2008 circular and subsequent confirmations) requiring an appellate finding where penalty for concealment exceeded Rs.50,000 and failed to demonstrate wilful evasion or ITAT determination of concealment before lodging complaint. In light of the Settlement Commission proceedings and the authorities' procedural non-compliance, the prosecution was held unlawful and liable to be quashed to vindicate fairness, consistency and accountability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
