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 HC held that the attachment and mutation effected by the revenue authority over immovable property belonging to an HUF, previously leased to a company with outstanding tax liabilities, was unlawful. The court quashed and set aside the mutation/attachment effected in favour of the State and directed withdrawal of the encumbrance, ruling that leasehold occupation by the company did not convert ownership or permit recovery of the company's VAT dues from the HUF's property merely because some HUF members were directors of the company. The petition was allowed and disposed of, with clarification that the HUF's property cannot be marshalled to satisfy the company's tax liability absent distinct personal liability of the directors.
The HC held that the attachment and mutation effected by the revenue authority over immovable property belonging to an HUF, previously leased to a company with outstanding tax liabilities, was unlawful. The court quashed and set aside the mutation/attachment effected in favour of the State and directed withdrawal of the encumbrance, ruling that leasehold occupation by the company did not convert ownership or permit recovery of the company's VAT dues from the HUF's property merely because some HUF members were directors of the company. The petition was allowed and disposed of, with clarification that the HUF's property cannot be marshalled to satisfy the company's tax liability absent distinct personal liability of the directors.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
