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 BankruptcyMarch 16, 2024Case LawsAT
Seeking condonation delay of 41 days in filing the present appeal - Sufficient reasons for delay or not - initiation of CIRP - Despite the appellant's claim of lack of awareness, the NCLAT noted evidence provided by the respondent showing that the appellant was informed of the impugned order through various means, including emails and representation by their advocate. Therefore, the NCLAT rejected the appellant's contention of lack of awareness. - The NCLAT emphasized that the limitation period for filing an appeal under the IBC starts from the date of the order and not from the date the appellant becomes aware of the order. The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's request to exclude certain days while calculating the limitation period, stating that such exclusions were not justified under the IBC.
Seeking condonation delay of 41 days in filing the present appeal - Sufficient reasons for delay or not - initiation of CIRP - Despite the appellant's claim of lack of awareness, the NCLAT noted evidence provided by the respondent showing that the appellant was informed of the impugned order through various means, including emails and representation by their advocate. Therefore, the NCLAT rejected the appellant's contention of lack of awareness. - The NCLAT emphasized that the limitation period for filing an appeal under the IBC starts from the date of the order and not from the date the appellant becomes aware of the order. The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's request to exclude certain days while calculating the limitation period, stating that such exclusions were not justified under the IBC.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
