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...
A writ petitioner sought to set aside rejection of a statutory appeal as time-barred and to compel acceptance beyond the maximum condonable period. Relying on binding precedent, the Court held that when the statute caps condonation, the appellate authority lacks power to admit an appeal filed after the aggregate period, and the HC's Article 226 jurisdiction cannot be used to override substantive limitation provisions or invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act to extend the outer limit; consequently, no direction could be issued to entertain the belated appeal. Having opted for the statutory appellate remedy, the petitioner could not seek writ scrutiny of the original order except on jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice, which was not shown; the petition was dismissed - HC
A writ petitioner sought to set aside rejection of a statutory appeal as time-barred and to compel acceptance beyond the maximum condonable period. Relying on binding precedent, the Court held that when the statute caps condonation, the appellate authority lacks power to admit an appeal filed after the aggregate period, and the HC's Article 226 jurisdiction cannot be used to override substantive limitation provisions or invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act to extend the outer limit; consequently, no direction could be issued to entertain the belated appeal. Having opted for the statutory appellate remedy, the petitioner could not seek writ scrutiny of the original order except on jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice, which was not shown; the petition was dismissed - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
