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...
AT dismissed both appeals and upheld the impugned provisional attachment and adjudication orders under the PBPTA. The Tribunal found the Approving Authority applied independent mind, relied on inquiry materials and notes, and concluded the references and orders were within the one-year limitation under s.26(7). The Appellant failed to discharge the evidential burden to prove legitimate consideration for two properties; cash payments and unexplained bank deposits, absence of corroborative agricultural income and missing ITRs warranted inference of non-agricultural/benami dealings. Alleged procedural flaws were characterized as mere surmises. Consequently, the PAO and consequent adjudication were sustained and both appeals were dismissed.
AT dismissed both appeals and upheld the impugned provisional attachment and adjudication orders under the PBPTA. The Tribunal found the Approving Authority applied independent mind, relied on inquiry materials and notes, and concluded the references and orders were within the one-year limitation under s.26(7). The Appellant failed to discharge the evidential burden to prove legitimate consideration for two properties; cash payments and unexplained bank deposits, absence of corroborative agricultural income and missing ITRs warranted inference of non-agricultural/benami dealings. Alleged procedural flaws were characterized as mere surmises. Consequently, the PAO and consequent adjudication were sustained and both appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.