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...
Shifting of registered office under Rule 30(9) was upheld where the petitioner's appeal challenged only grant of interest on pre- and intra CIRP dues and no stay of the adjudicating order was obtained; the court applied the principle that mere pendency of an appeal does not suspend compliance absent an appellate stay and noted prior tribunal clarification that pendency is not a ground to avoid statutory requirements. The High Court concluded the Regional Director lawfully permitted relocation, finding no prejudice shown by the petitioners and that the second proviso of sub rule (9) did not bar consideration in these facts.
Shifting of registered office under Rule 30(9) was upheld where the petitioner's appeal challenged only grant of interest on pre- and intra CIRP dues and no stay of the adjudicating order was obtained; the court applied the principle that mere pendency of an appeal does not suspend compliance absent an appellate stay and noted prior tribunal clarification that pendency is not a ground to avoid statutory requirements. The High Court concluded the Regional Director lawfully permitted relocation, finding no prejudice shown by the petitioners and that the second proviso of sub rule (9) did not bar consideration in these facts.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.