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...
Shares held in a demat account were treated as property acquired from proceeds of crime where the appellant, a Data Entry Operator on a modest salary, had received funds from an entity linked to alleged diversion of money and could not substantiate her claim that the transfer was a one-time family medical help. The bank records showed the amount was used to purchase shares of M/s CGPISL, which remained in the demat account. The Appellate Tribunal found no illegality in the provisional attachment merely because the appellant was not named in the FIR and upheld the attachment of the shares. The appeal was dismissed.
Shares held in a demat account were treated as property acquired from proceeds of crime where the appellant, a Data Entry Operator on a modest salary, had received funds from an entity linked to alleged diversion of money and could not substantiate her claim that the transfer was a one-time family medical help. The bank records showed the amount was used to purchase shares of M/s CGPISL, which remained in the demat account. The Appellate Tribunal found no illegality in the provisional attachment merely because the appellant was not named in the FIR and upheld the attachment of the shares. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.