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...
Delayed adjudication under s. 28(9) of the Customs Act was challenged on the ground that the extension order for deciding the SCN was not communicated, in a dispute over denial of preferential duty exemption based on Certificates of Origin under the ASEAN-India FTA. The Court held that, unlike s. 110(2), s. 28 does not mandate prior intimation or communication of an extension; while intimation is desirable, non-communication is not fatal. Given the failure to file any substantive reply on merits to rebut the verification email questioning the Certificates of Origin, no ground for writ interference was made out; the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal with time to file it. - HC
Delayed adjudication under s. 28(9) of the Customs Act was challenged on the ground that the extension order for deciding the SCN was not communicated, in a dispute over denial of preferential duty exemption based on Certificates of Origin under the ASEAN-India FTA. The Court held that, unlike s. 110(2), s. 28 does not mandate prior intimation or communication of an extension; while intimation is desirable, non-communication is not fatal. Given the failure to file any substantive reply on merits to rebut the verification email questioning the Certificates of Origin, no ground for writ interference was made out; the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal with time to file it. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
