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...
Statutory limits on executive review of vested land orders are reaffirmed: conferral of Civil Court powers does not automatically grant an unrestricted review jurisdiction to executive quasi judicial officers, and statutes barring reopening of concluded vesting determinations preclude such reviews. The 2008 review purporting to set aside the 1971 vesting order was therefore without jurisdiction and void; the Tribunal's quashing of that review was properly restored. Separately, the review failed the narrow Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC tests (no newly discovered evidence shown, no mistake apparent on the record, and no analogous sufficient reason), so the 1971 vesting order remains operative.
Statutory limits on executive review of vested land orders are reaffirmed: conferral of Civil Court powers does not automatically grant an unrestricted review jurisdiction to executive quasi judicial officers, and statutes barring reopening of concluded vesting determinations preclude such reviews. The 2008 review purporting to set aside the 1971 vesting order was therefore without jurisdiction and void; the Tribunal's quashing of that review was properly restored. Separately, the review failed the narrow Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC tests (no newly discovered evidence shown, no mistake apparent on the record, and no analogous sufficient reason), so the 1971 vesting order remains operative.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.