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...
HC allowed the writ, holding that rejection of the Petitioner's SVLDR-1 declaration without affording an opportunity of hearing violated principles of natural justice. The impugned e-mail rejection dated 6 February 2020 was quashed and set aside, and the declaration was ordered to be accepted with the duty liability quantified at Rs. 1,06,21,929/-. The Respondents were directed to compute the revised payable amount under the SVLDR scheme, deducting a verified pre-deposit of Rs. 29,72,500/-. The petition was disposed of, with the court noting that upholding the rejection would have necessitated protracted adjudication and appeals, causing undue prejudice to the Petitioner.
HC allowed the writ, holding that rejection of the Petitioner's SVLDR-1 declaration without affording an opportunity of hearing violated principles of natural justice. The impugned e-mail rejection dated 6 February 2020 was quashed and set aside, and the declaration was ordered to be accepted with the duty liability quantified at Rs. 1,06,21,929/-. The Respondents were directed to compute the revised payable amount under the SVLDR scheme, deducting a verified pre-deposit of Rs. 29,72,500/-. The petition was disposed of, with the court noting that upholding the rejection would have necessitated protracted adjudication and appeals, causing undue prejudice to the Petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
