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 dismissed criminal revision petitions challenging orders rejecting applications for discharge and framing charges, thereby affirming the trial court's continuation of prosecution. The court held that sufficient material surfaced during investigation to prima facie presume involvement in the scheduled offence and to justify framing charges; the stage of discharge/framing does not permit a mini-trial or meticulous weighing of defence. The HC reiterated that prosecution must establish foundational facts - existence of proceeds of crime and the accused's involvement - after which the statutory presumption shifts under Section 24(a) and the accused must rebut it. Revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent legal or procedural errors; no such error was found, so impugned orders were upheld.
The HC dismissed criminal revision petitions challenging orders rejecting applications for discharge and framing charges, thereby affirming the trial court's continuation of prosecution. The court held that sufficient material surfaced during investigation to prima facie presume involvement in the scheduled offence and to justify framing charges; the stage of discharge/framing does not permit a mini-trial or meticulous weighing of defence. The HC reiterated that prosecution must establish foundational facts - existence of proceeds of crime and the accused's involvement - after which the statutory presumption shifts under Section 24(a) and the accused must rebut it. Revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent legal or procedural errors; no such error was found, so impugned orders were upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
