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...
Oppression and Mismanagement - The appellants are critical of the Special Officer appointed by the learned National Company Law Tribunal (who was appointed to ensure smooth holding of board meetings) and took opportunity to file even against such Special Officer a contempt application. The impugned order shows that when the original respondents did not co-operate in naming a valuer the Special Officer selected a name and got the valuation done. The respondents have been agitating over this claiming that the Special Officer could not have on his own gone ahead to appoint a valuer and should have moved the National Company Law Tribunal for modification. The learned National Company Law Tribunal does not appear to have found fault with such procedure adopted by the Special Officer. - The impugned order as has been passed should not be interfered with - AT
Oppression and Mismanagement - The appellants are critical of the Special Officer appointed by the learned National Company Law Tribunal (who was appointed to ensure smooth holding of board meetings) and took opportunity to file even against such Special Officer a contempt application. The impugned order shows that when the original respondents did not co-operate in naming a valuer the Special Officer selected a name and got the valuation done. The respondents have been agitating over this claiming that the Special Officer could not have on his own gone ahead to appoint a valuer and should have moved the National Company Law Tribunal for modification. The learned National Company Law Tribunal does not appear to have found fault with such procedure adopted by the Special Officer. - The impugned order as has been passed should not be interfered with - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
