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...
The defendants contended that the suit, insofar as it invoked the right to be forgotten, was barred by limitation; the Court held that the plaint sought distinct reliefs for privacy, dignity and erasure of stigmatizing content apart from damages for defamation, and the suit was filed soon after the plaintiff's exoneration, hence it could not be rejected at the threshold under Article 75 of the Limitation Act, so the limitation objection failed. On the challenge to the interim injunction under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, the Court found the trial court's order narrowly tailored, not a blanket restraint on speech, and proportionately balancing Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 given irreversible reputational harm from perpetual online availability; the appeal was dismissed. - HC
The defendants contended that the suit, insofar as it invoked the right to be forgotten, was barred by limitation; the Court held that the plaint sought distinct reliefs for privacy, dignity and erasure of stigmatizing content apart from damages for defamation, and the suit was filed soon after the plaintiff's exoneration, hence it could not be rejected at the threshold under Article 75 of the Limitation Act, so the limitation objection failed. On the challenge to the interim injunction under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, the Court found the trial court's order narrowly tailored, not a blanket restraint on speech, and proportionately balancing Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 given irreversible reputational harm from perpetual online availability; the appeal was dismissed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
