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 allowed the petition and quashed the second show cause notice dated 15.09.2005, holding it void for want of jurisdiction and barred by limitation. The court reasoned that the revenue could not initiate a fresh proceeding to invoke a purportedly changed law after the Tribunal had earlier set aside the original demand arising from the SCN dated 02.04.1998, and that permitting multiple proceedings for the same alleged infringement would contravene settled tax-law principles analogous to res judicata. The HC further held that Section 11A(11)(a) imposes a requirement of reasonable time to conclude proceedings, no satisfactory explanation was offered for delay beyond six months from 19.12.2016, and reliance on the Supreme Court decision was distinguishable.
HC allowed the petition and quashed the second show cause notice dated 15.09.2005, holding it void for want of jurisdiction and barred by limitation. The court reasoned that the revenue could not initiate a fresh proceeding to invoke a purportedly changed law after the Tribunal had earlier set aside the original demand arising from the SCN dated 02.04.1998, and that permitting multiple proceedings for the same alleged infringement would contravene settled tax-law principles analogous to res judicata. The HC further held that Section 11A(11)(a) imposes a requirement of reasonable time to conclude proceedings, no satisfactory explanation was offered for delay beyond six months from 19.12.2016, and reliance on the Supreme Court decision was distinguishable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.