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 held that the inquiry report issued by the second respondent is vitiated and set aside, and the disciplinary proceedings have abated for failure to comply with the mandatory timelines prescribed by Reg.17(1) and Reg.17(5) of the CBLR, 2018. The court found the inquiry report dated 27.6.2025 was submitted and not communicated within the statutory 90-day period, thereby depriving the petitioner of a timely copy and rendering subsequent action ultra vires; estoppel could not be invoked to cure the statutory breach. Given abatement, the HC declined to adjudicate the separate contention concerning the right to cross-examine witnesses; petition allowed.
HC held that the inquiry report issued by the second respondent is vitiated and set aside, and the disciplinary proceedings have abated for failure to comply with the mandatory timelines prescribed by Reg.17(1) and Reg.17(5) of the CBLR, 2018. The court found the inquiry report dated 27.6.2025 was submitted and not communicated within the statutory 90-day period, thereby depriving the petitioner of a timely copy and rendering subsequent action ultra vires; estoppel could not be invoked to cure the statutory breach. Given abatement, the HC declined to adjudicate the separate contention concerning the right to cross-examine witnesses; petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
