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...
CIRP - denial of rights to be heard to protect the Financial Interest of Hundreds of Home Buyers / Allottees - Applicability of Threshold - joint filing by either 100 allottees or 10% of the total number of allottees of the same real estate project, whichever is less - The Tribunal noted that the appellant and co-petitioners, representing various projects within the township, did not meet the specified threshold for initiating CIRP, as they did not collectively belong to the same real estate project or phase. - The NCLAT concluded that the appeal lacks merit based on the presented arguments and evidence. It was determined that the application for initiating CIRP was not maintainable in law, affirming the decision of the Adjudicating Authority.
CIRP - denial of rights to be heard to protect the Financial Interest of Hundreds of Home Buyers / Allottees - Applicability of Threshold - joint filing by either 100 allottees or 10% of the total number of allottees of the same real estate project, whichever is less - The Tribunal noted that the appellant and co-petitioners, representing various projects within the township, did not meet the specified threshold for initiating CIRP, as they did not collectively belong to the same real estate project or phase. - The NCLAT concluded that the appeal lacks merit based on the presented arguments and evidence. It was determined that the application for initiating CIRP was not maintainable in law, affirming the decision of the Adjudicating Authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
