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...
AT affirmed that seized cash constitutes "property" under the PBPT and may be subject to benami proceedings. Appellant No.1 was validly proceeded against as a benamidar under ss.2(9)(C) and 2(9)(D) as the cash fell within the statutory definition of benami property; the challenge failed. Appellants Nos.2 and 3 were held not liable as they neither possessed nor claimed ownership of the seized cash. The requirement of prior approval under s.23 was held inapplicable where a show-cause notice had already been issued. The issuance of the SCN and available material sufficed for formation of reason to believe; absence of a fresh independent inquiry or pre-notice disclosure of reasons did not vitiate proceedings.
AT affirmed that seized cash constitutes "property" under the PBPT and may be subject to benami proceedings. Appellant No.1 was validly proceeded against as a benamidar under ss.2(9)(C) and 2(9)(D) as the cash fell within the statutory definition of benami property; the challenge failed. Appellants Nos.2 and 3 were held not liable as they neither possessed nor claimed ownership of the seized cash. The requirement of prior approval under s.23 was held inapplicable where a show-cause notice had already been issued. The issuance of the SCN and available material sufficed for formation of reason to believe; absence of a fresh independent inquiry or pre-notice disclosure of reasons did not vitiate proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
