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 upheld the impugned show cause notice and provisional attachment issued under s.24 of the Benami Act against A and related entities, holding that the Initiating Officer (IO) is only required to have "reason to believe" based on some material in his possession, a standard higher than under BNS/BNSS but lower than a prima facie case. HC declined to examine in writ jurisdiction whether the transactions fit the definition of "benami transaction" under s.2(9), as this falls within the domain of the Adjudicating Authority. HC held that prior written approval of the Approving Authority under s.24(3) need not be supplied with the attachment order, though it must be provided on request. Liberty was reserved to A to seek relief before the Adjudicating Authority. The writ petition was dismissed.
HC upheld the impugned show cause notice and provisional attachment issued under s.24 of the Benami Act against A and related entities, holding that the Initiating Officer (IO) is only required to have "reason to believe" based on some material in his possession, a standard higher than under BNS/BNSS but lower than a prima facie case. HC declined to examine in writ jurisdiction whether the transactions fit the definition of "benami transaction" under s.2(9), as this falls within the domain of the Adjudicating Authority. HC held that prior written approval of the Approving Authority under s.24(3) need not be supplied with the attachment order, though it must be provided on request. Liberty was reserved to A to seek relief before the Adjudicating Authority. The writ petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
