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 dismissed the challenge to the ITAT's refusal to admit belated affidavits under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, holding that admission of additional evidence is permissible only where the assessee was prevented by the assessing authority from adducing it earlier. The court found the affidavits to be afterthoughts explaining unexplained income under s.69A and noted prior returns declared the amounts as income; one appellant had been set ex parte and an alleged third-party claim was never advanced at earlier stages. Rejection of the belated evidence was held justified and the ITAT's fact-based orders affirmed.
HC dismissed the challenge to the ITAT's refusal to admit belated affidavits under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, holding that admission of additional evidence is permissible only where the assessee was prevented by the assessing authority from adducing it earlier. The court found the affidavits to be afterthoughts explaining unexplained income under s.69A and noted prior returns declared the amounts as income; one appellant had been set ex parte and an alleged third-party claim was never advanced at earlier stages. Rejection of the belated evidence was held justified and the ITAT's fact-based orders affirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.