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 declined to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) to quash prosecution for offences under Sections 276B, 278B and 278E. The Court held that foundational facts of deduction but non-deposit of TDS within time stand admitted and prima facie ingredients of the offence are disclosed. Rival claims between directors regarding who controlled financial affairs and was responsible for TDS compliance were held to be pure questions of fact. In view of the deeming liability under Section 278B and presumption of culpable mental state under Section 278E, defences of lack of responsibility or reasonable cause can only be tested at trial. Petition was dismissed and proceedings directed to continue.
HC declined to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) to quash prosecution for offences under Sections 276B, 278B and 278E. The Court held that foundational facts of deduction but non-deposit of TDS within time stand admitted and prima facie ingredients of the offence are disclosed. Rival claims between directors regarding who controlled financial affairs and was responsible for TDS compliance were held to be pure questions of fact. In view of the deeming liability under Section 278B and presumption of culpable mental state under Section 278E, defences of lack of responsibility or reasonable cause can only be tested at trial. Petition was dismissed and proceedings directed to continue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
