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...
The HC sustained rejection of a revision application filed with a delay of 1,460 days because the explanation of partner disputes was vague and did not establish sufficient cause. It noted that the firm continued to comply with statutory obligations, including audits and return filing, during the alleged period of impediment, showing no inability to file on time. As the Commissioner's view on unexplained delay was a plausible one, no interference was warranted in writ jurisdiction. The Court also held that, once delay was the ground of rejection, the authority should not have commented on merits; those observations were directed to be ignored and not treated as precedent.
The HC sustained rejection of a revision application filed with a delay of 1,460 days because the explanation of partner disputes was vague and did not establish sufficient cause. It noted that the firm continued to comply with statutory obligations, including audits and return filing, during the alleged period of impediment, showing no inability to file on time. As the Commissioner's view on unexplained delay was a plausible one, no interference was warranted in writ jurisdiction. The Court also held that, once delay was the ground of rejection, the authority should not have commented on merits; those observations were directed to be ignored and not treated as precedent.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.