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 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order under Section 24(4)(b) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The Tribunal held the PAO validly issued with Approving Authority's concurrence and not subject to the stricter apprehension-of-alienation requirement of Section 24(3). The appellant failed to satisfactorily disclose the source of Rs. 2 crore; the transaction was found to satisfy Section 2(9)(D) as a benami transaction and the appellant was treated as benamidar. The AT ruled that taxation under Sections 68/69A of the IT Act does not preclude proceedings under the Benami Act. Appeal dismissed.
AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order under Section 24(4)(b) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The Tribunal held the PAO validly issued with Approving Authority's concurrence and not subject to the stricter apprehension-of-alienation requirement of Section 24(3). The appellant failed to satisfactorily disclose the source of Rs. 2 crore; the transaction was found to satisfy Section 2(9)(D) as a benami transaction and the appellant was treated as benamidar. The AT ruled that taxation under Sections 68/69A of the IT Act does not preclude proceedings under the Benami Act. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
