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...
Disallowance of input tax credit was challenged on the ground that proceedings under Section 73 were initiated only against the recipient without first following the statutory mechanism under Section 42 against the suppliers. The Court held that Section 42(3) mandates issuance of a discrepancy notice to both supplier and recipient, and Section 42(5) permits fastening output tax liability on the recipient only if, after such communication, the supplier fails to rectify the discrepancy in the prescribed return. Since no proceedings/notices were initiated against the suppliers before issuing the show cause notice to the recipient, the notice was without jurisdiction and was quashed, with liberty to proceed against the suppliers. - HC
Disallowance of input tax credit was challenged on the ground that proceedings under Section 73 were initiated only against the recipient without first following the statutory mechanism under Section 42 against the suppliers. The Court held that Section 42(3) mandates issuance of a discrepancy notice to both supplier and recipient, and Section 42(5) permits fastening output tax liability on the recipient only if, after such communication, the supplier fails to rectify the discrepancy in the prescribed return. Since no proceedings/notices were initiated against the suppliers before issuing the show cause notice to the recipient, the notice was without jurisdiction and was quashed, with liberty to proceed against the suppliers. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.