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...
Section 107 of the GST law allows an appeal within three months, with only one further month condonable on sufficient cause; once that outer limit expires, neither the Appellate Authority nor the HC can extend time. Applying Supreme Court guidance, the Court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to override the statutory limitation scheme, and explanations such as accountant negligence did not justify condonation beyond the cap. Having already pursued the statutory appeal, the petitioner was also not permitted to reopen the show-cause notice or cancellation order in writ proceedings, especially where no appearance was made before the appellate authority despite opportunity. The writ petition was dismissed.
Section 107 of the GST law allows an appeal within three months, with only one further month condonable on sufficient cause; once that outer limit expires, neither the Appellate Authority nor the HC can extend time. Applying Supreme Court guidance, the Court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to override the statutory limitation scheme, and explanations such as accountant negligence did not justify condonation beyond the cap. Having already pursued the statutory appeal, the petitioner was also not permitted to reopen the show-cause notice or cancellation order in writ proceedings, especially where no appearance was made before the appellate authority despite opportunity. The writ petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
