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 appeal and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication on merits concerning the correctness of the s.154 rectification order. The Tribunal's treatment of the challenge as confined to an order condoning delay under s.119(2)(b) was held to be factually erroneous because the appellant in fact contested the substantive s.154 order, which neither the Appellate Authority nor the Tribunal had examined. Leaving the appellant remediless against the s.154 order was impermissible. Consequently the HC directed that the Appellate Authority determine the correctness of the rectification under s.154 on its merits, and the appeal was allowed.
HC allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication on merits concerning the correctness of the s.154 rectification order. The Tribunal's treatment of the challenge as confined to an order condoning delay under s.119(2)(b) was held to be factually erroneous because the appellant in fact contested the substantive s.154 order, which neither the Appellate Authority nor the Tribunal had examined. Leaving the appellant remediless against the s.154 order was impermissible. Consequently the HC directed that the Appellate Authority determine the correctness of the rectification under s.154 on its merits, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
