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 quashed the impugned order rejecting the application for release of jewellery requisitioned u/s 132A, holding that it was passed by an officer who did not hold jurisdiction over the petitioner, contrary to directions earlier issued by the MP HC. The Court declined to examine the merits of the petitioner's claim of ownership or the evidentiary sufficiency regarding the seized jewellery. Observing that the case had since been centralized, HC directed the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai, now the jurisdictional officer, to decide the petitioner's application afresh on its own merits, after granting due opportunity of hearing and calling for further documents if required.
HC quashed the impugned order rejecting the application for release of jewellery requisitioned u/s 132A, holding that it was passed by an officer who did not hold jurisdiction over the petitioner, contrary to directions earlier issued by the MP HC. The Court declined to examine the merits of the petitioner's claim of ownership or the evidentiary sufficiency regarding the seized jewellery. Observing that the case had since been centralized, HC directed the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai, now the jurisdictional officer, to decide the petitioner's application afresh on its own merits, after granting due opportunity of hearing and calling for further documents if required.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
