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 AT held that the impugned retention order concerning seized articles, including gold, violated natural justice by failing to issue the mandatory minimum 30-day notice under s.8(1) of the Act to require the appellant to disclose the source of income/assets; the Tribunal rejected the respondent's contention that a shareholder/director could be treated as representing the appellant without documentary authorization. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of by way of remand: the matter is returned to the Adjudicating Authority with directions to serve the requisite s.8(1) notice on the appellant company and to adjudicate afresh in accordance with law and due process.
The AT held that the impugned retention order concerning seized articles, including gold, violated natural justice by failing to issue the mandatory minimum 30-day notice under s.8(1) of the Act to require the appellant to disclose the source of income/assets; the Tribunal rejected the respondent's contention that a shareholder/director could be treated as representing the appellant without documentary authorization. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of by way of remand: the matter is returned to the Adjudicating Authority with directions to serve the requisite s.8(1) notice on the appellant company and to adjudicate afresh in accordance with law and due process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
