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...
Initiation of CIRP - Relevant date of default - The Tribunal noted the appellant’s arguments about defaults prior to the RBI’s COVID-19 moratorium guidelines but also observed that the application for CIRP and the recall notice came after the implementation of these guidelines. The Tribunal concluded that while the initial default might have occurred before the pandemic, the formal procedures for CIRP were only initiated after the pandemic began, thereby falling within the protective scope of Section 10A of the IBC. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the adjudicating authority's decision not to initiate CIRP, but noted that the appellant retains the right to pursue other legal remedies to recover the debt.
Initiation of CIRP - Relevant date of default - The Tribunal noted the appellant’s arguments about defaults prior to the RBI’s COVID-19 moratorium guidelines but also observed that the application for CIRP and the recall notice came after the implementation of these guidelines. The Tribunal concluded that while the initial default might have occurred before the pandemic, the formal procedures for CIRP were only initiated after the pandemic began, thereby falling within the protective scope of Section 10A of the IBC. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the adjudicating authority's decision not to initiate CIRP, but noted that the appellant retains the right to pursue other legal remedies to recover the debt.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.