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...
Revisional powers under Section 264 were held to be broad and aimed at preventing miscarriage of justice and granting relief to an assessee even where the assessee committed mistakes in the original return; consequently the revision application should have been considered and the impugned order under Section 264 was set aside. The court distinguished the Supreme Court decision in Goetze (India) Ltd., finding it inapplicable because that case did not address revisional powers under Section 264 but concerned a post filing deduction without a revised return.
Revisional powers under Section 264 were held to be broad and aimed at preventing miscarriage of justice and granting relief to an assessee even where the assessee committed mistakes in the original return; consequently the revision application should have been considered and the impugned order under Section 264 was set aside. The court distinguished the Supreme Court decision in Goetze (India) Ltd., finding it inapplicable because that case did not address revisional powers under Section 264 but concerned a post filing deduction without a revised return.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.