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...
After insertion of Article 226(2), territorial jurisdiction extends to a High Court where part of the cause of action arises. Because the amalgamated petitioner was at Pune, the recovery notice was received there, the consequences of the impugned demands operated there, and the case had been transferred under Section 127 to the Pune officer, the writ petition was maintainable in Bombay; the Delhi officer was functus officio and effective relief could be granted only in Pune. On merits, the Revenue failed to produce any assessment, rectification, intimation, or service record supporting the demands, so an adverse inference arose and recovery of the non-existent demands was impermissible. The demands, recovery notice, and computation sheets were quashed.
After insertion of Article 226(2), territorial jurisdiction extends to a High Court where part of the cause of action arises. Because the amalgamated petitioner was at Pune, the recovery notice was received there, the consequences of the impugned demands operated there, and the case had been transferred under Section 127 to the Pune officer, the writ petition was maintainable in Bombay; the Delhi officer was functus officio and effective relief could be granted only in Pune. On merits, the Revenue failed to produce any assessment, rectification, intimation, or service record supporting the demands, so an adverse inference arose and recovery of the non-existent demands was impermissible. The demands, recovery notice, and computation sheets were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.