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 held that the assessee's rectification application under s. 254(2) was within limitation, as the limitation period commences from the date of service of the order sought to be rectified, read harmoniously with the relevant Tribunal Rules requiring copies of the order to accompany such application. Since the order was served only on 24 March 2025 and the miscellaneous application was filed within six months thereof, ITAT erred in treating it as time-barred and in relying on the Leena Power Tech decision, which was distinguishable. The writ petition was disposed of by clarifying that all grounds on merits remain open to be urged in the pending appeal against the original order.
HC held that the assessee's rectification application under s. 254(2) was within limitation, as the limitation period commences from the date of service of the order sought to be rectified, read harmoniously with the relevant Tribunal Rules requiring copies of the order to accompany such application. Since the order was served only on 24 March 2025 and the miscellaneous application was filed within six months thereof, ITAT erred in treating it as time-barred and in relying on the Leena Power Tech decision, which was distinguishable. The writ petition was disposed of by clarifying that all grounds on merits remain open to be urged in the pending appeal against the original order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.