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 HC allowed the petition and set aside the impugned attachment notice against the petitioner, holding that liability of a deceased partner's legal representative under s.159 is confined to the value of the estate inherited and cannot exceed inherited assets. The court found the respondent had mechanically attached the petitioner's bank account containing only Rs. 60,002 and there was no evidence the petitioner had inherited assets of partners of the defaulting firm; therefore the attachment was unlawful. The respondents remain at liberty to pursue recovery against the partnership firm, its partners and their legal heirs in accordance with s.159 read with s.189 of the 1961 Act.
The HC allowed the petition and set aside the impugned attachment notice against the petitioner, holding that liability of a deceased partner's legal representative under s.159 is confined to the value of the estate inherited and cannot exceed inherited assets. The court found the respondent had mechanically attached the petitioner's bank account containing only Rs. 60,002 and there was no evidence the petitioner had inherited assets of partners of the defaulting firm; therefore the attachment was unlawful. The respondents remain at liberty to pursue recovery against the partnership firm, its partners and their legal heirs in accordance with s.159 read with s.189 of the 1961 Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
