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...
Leave encashment exemption under section 10(10AA)(ii) was held to remain capped at Rs. 3 lakh for the year under consideration, because the enhanced limit notified later operated only prospectively from 01.04.2023. The ITAT accepted that the limit should have been revised earlier, but followed the Kerala High Court in Ramesan P. A. and held that retrospective revision could not be directed since issuance of the notification was a matter of executive policy. The Delhi High Court notice order relied on by the assessee in Kamal Kumar Kalia was not treated as binding. The appeal was dismissed and the section 143(1) adjustment sustained.
Leave encashment exemption under section 10(10AA)(ii) was held to remain capped at Rs. 3 lakh for the year under consideration, because the enhanced limit notified later operated only prospectively from 01.04.2023. The ITAT accepted that the limit should have been revised earlier, but followed the Kerala High Court in Ramesan P. A. and held that retrospective revision could not be directed since issuance of the notification was a matter of executive policy. The Delhi High Court notice order relied on by the assessee in Kamal Kumar Kalia was not treated as binding. The appeal was dismissed and the section 143(1) adjustment sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
