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 dominant issue was whether inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita could be invoked to quash a conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the NI Act after the criminal revision had been finally decided. The Court held that final adjudication of a criminal revision exhausts the Court's power to reopen the conviction through inherent jurisdiction; earlier single-judge authority suggesting otherwise was not accepted as permitting such post-revisional interference, and a contrary view in a later case was treated as fact-specific and not laying down a binding principle. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, reserving liberty to pursue permissible remedies. - HC
The dominant issue was whether inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita could be invoked to quash a conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the NI Act after the criminal revision had been finally decided. The Court held that final adjudication of a criminal revision exhausts the Court's power to reopen the conviction through inherent jurisdiction; earlier single-judge authority suggesting otherwise was not accepted as permitting such post-revisional interference, and a contrary view in a later case was treated as fact-specific and not laying down a binding principle. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, reserving liberty to pursue permissible remedies. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
