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...
Insolvency and BankruptcyJanuary 23, 2020Case LawsAT
Initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor or not - M/s. Homestead Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) reached agreement jointly with 'M/s. Golden Peacock Residence Private Limited' have entered into the development agreement with 'M/s. Raheja Developers Limited' and for all purposes it is a joint venture with 'M/s. Golden Peacock Residence Private Limited' who is a subsidiary company and reached agreement with Respondent, but asked to pay the amount to 'M/s. Golden Peacock Residence Private Limited', we hold that the application under Section 7 against 'M/s. Homestead Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd.'- ('Corporate Debtor') is maintainable.
Initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor or not - M/s. Homestead Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) reached agreement jointly with 'M/s. Golden Peacock Residence Private Limited' have entered into the development agreement with 'M/s. Raheja Developers Limited' and for all purposes it is a joint venture with 'M/s. Golden Peacock Residence Private Limited' who is a subsidiary company and reached agreement with Respondent, but asked to pay the amount to 'M/s. Golden Peacock Residence Private Limited', we hold that the application under Section 7 against 'M/s. Homestead Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd.'- ('Corporate Debtor') is maintainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.