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...
Appointment of the Appellant as the liquidator - The Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to comply with Regulation 31A(11) by not submitting the mandatory written consent on Form AA of Schedule II before the Adjudicating Authority or the SCC. Despite the alleged consent dated 29.08.2023, there was no evidence of its submission to the relevant authorities. - The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to appoint Respondent No. 2 as the liquidator, citing the authority's power to replace the liquidator for justifiable reasons. - Agreeing with the Respondent, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellant lacked locus standi to file the appeal as they were merely a proposed/prospective liquidator without inherent rights to the appointment.
Appointment of the Appellant as the liquidator - The Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to comply with Regulation 31A(11) by not submitting the mandatory written consent on Form AA of Schedule II before the Adjudicating Authority or the SCC. Despite the alleged consent dated 29.08.2023, there was no evidence of its submission to the relevant authorities. - The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to appoint Respondent No. 2 as the liquidator, citing the authority's power to replace the liquidator for justifiable reasons. - Agreeing with the Respondent, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellant lacked locus standi to file the appeal as they were merely a proposed/prospective liquidator without inherent rights to the appointment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
