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 directed the appellants to refund monies to 1,100 investors who approached them, granting a reduced rate of interest of 9% per annum in lieu of the prayed 12%. The Tribunal found the land rendered unusable by oil spillage, preventing the cultivation of promised teak saplings and noting investors' delay of approximately three decades. In the exercise of equitable discretion and in the interests of justice, the claim for refund was allowed subject to the reduced rate; appellants were ordered to make restitution to the identified investors at 9% p.a., thereby resolving the dispute without compelling performance of the original prospectus benefits.
AT directed the appellants to refund monies to 1,100 investors who approached them, granting a reduced rate of interest of 9% per annum in lieu of the prayed 12%. The Tribunal found the land rendered unusable by oil spillage, preventing the cultivation of promised teak saplings and noting investors' delay of approximately three decades. In the exercise of equitable discretion and in the interests of justice, the claim for refund was allowed subject to the reduced rate; appellants were ordered to make restitution to the identified investors at 9% p.a., thereby resolving the dispute without compelling performance of the original prospectus benefits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.