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 AT allows the appeal, condones the delay, and sets aside...
Appeal allowed: Secretary held ministerial, no primary managerial liability; section 15-I(3) limits penalty enhancement and account attachment criticised as prejudicial
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The AT allows the appeal, condones the delay, and sets aside findings insofar as they imputed primary managerial liability to the appellant for violations of the CIS order. The AT holds that a company secretary's role is ministerial/secretarial and he cannot be held vicariously liable for acts or omissions of the company or its board in relation to the CIS wound-up in 2008-09. The AT criticises the Recovery Officer's imprudent attachment of the appellant's accounts and the consequent mechanical initiation of prosecution, finding procedural impropriety and prejudice to the appellant. The AT further construes section 15-I(3) as limited to enhancement of an existing penalty and not as conferring power to impose de novo penal consequences. Appeal allowed.
The AT allows the appeal, condones the delay, and sets aside findings insofar as they imputed primary managerial liability to the appellant for violations of the CIS order. The AT holds that a company secretary's role is ministerial/secretarial and he cannot be held vicariously liable for acts or omissions of the company or its board in relation to the CIS wound-up in 2008-09. The AT criticises the Recovery Officer's imprudent attachment of the appellant's accounts and the consequent mechanical initiation of prosecution, finding procedural impropriety and prejudice to the appellant. The AT further construes section 15-I(3) as limited to enhancement of an existing penalty and not as conferring power to impose de novo penal consequences. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.