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...
Appeal under Section 260A is confined to substantial questions of law and does not permit re appreciation of evidence or concurrent findings of fact; appeal dismissed to the extent it sought such re examination. The Revenue discharged its initial burden by issuing notices to counterparties and obtaining denials or non service, which constituted substantial evidence and shifted the onus to the appellant to produce creditworthy documents or witnesses; appellant failed to do so, so findings of bogus transactions were supportable. No procedural prejudice was shown as there is no record of a refused request to cross examine and the appellant did not produce parties or evidence.
Appeal under Section 260A is confined to substantial questions of law and does not permit re appreciation of evidence or concurrent findings of fact; appeal dismissed to the extent it sought such re examination. The Revenue discharged its initial burden by issuing notices to counterparties and obtaining denials or non service, which constituted substantial evidence and shifted the onus to the appellant to produce creditworthy documents or witnesses; appellant failed to do so, so findings of bogus transactions were supportable. No procedural prejudice was shown as there is no record of a refused request to cross examine and the appellant did not produce parties or evidence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.