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...
Eligibility to avail the SVLDR Scheme for a second show cause notice issued after the Scheme's prescribed cut-off date was the dominant issue. The Court held that mere cross-reference to an earlier notice, or reliance on documents from it, does not render the later notice a continuation of the earlier proceedings; the later notice was an independent demand with separate quantification and adjudication. Since notices issued beyond the Scheme deadline are ineligible, rejection of the Scheme application for the later notice was upheld. However, to avoid denial of statutory remedies due to pendency of the writ, the petitioner was permitted to file an appeal against the adjudication order within the extended time granted. - HC
Eligibility to avail the SVLDR Scheme for a second show cause notice issued after the Scheme's prescribed cut-off date was the dominant issue. The Court held that mere cross-reference to an earlier notice, or reliance on documents from it, does not render the later notice a continuation of the earlier proceedings; the later notice was an independent demand with separate quantification and adjudication. Since notices issued beyond the Scheme deadline are ineligible, rejection of the Scheme application for the later notice was upheld. However, to avoid denial of statutory remedies due to pendency of the writ, the petitioner was permitted to file an appeal against the adjudication order within the extended time granted. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.