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 stay application and directed the appellant to pre-deposit 20% of the entire disputed demand pending appeal, applying the CBDT OMs; the court held that where demand is contested before CIT(A) ordinarily stay is subject to a 20% deposit unless particularized reasons justify a higher lump sum. The HC observed absence of AO action under s.245 or specific reasons warranting more than 20%, noted the respondent considered the appellant's assessed financial position and found no evidence of hardship, and concluded the respondent's brief reasons demonstrated application of mind. The order dated 05.04.2019 was upheld as not vitiated by mala fides or wilful disobedience.
HC dismissed the stay application and directed the appellant to pre-deposit 20% of the entire disputed demand pending appeal, applying the CBDT OMs; the court held that where demand is contested before CIT(A) ordinarily stay is subject to a 20% deposit unless particularized reasons justify a higher lump sum. The HC observed absence of AO action under s.245 or specific reasons warranting more than 20%, noted the respondent considered the appellant's assessed financial position and found no evidence of hardship, and concluded the respondent's brief reasons demonstrated application of mind. The order dated 05.04.2019 was upheld as not vitiated by mala fides or wilful disobedience.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
