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...
Rejection of section 9 application - Initiation of CIRP - prior dispute in relation to existence of debt or not - The Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) noted that the Mandate Letter contained ambiguities regarding the liable party for fee payments and supported the Adjudicating Authority’s view that the obligation to pay arose only upon raising of debit notes not proforma invoices, as per the Mandate Letter. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the engagement of IDBI Capital for similar services, which further indicated a dispute. - Applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations v. Kirusa Software, the Tribunal concluded that the pre-existing disputes were not frivolous or spurious and required further investigation.
Rejection of section 9 application - Initiation of CIRP - prior dispute in relation to existence of debt or not - The Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) noted that the Mandate Letter contained ambiguities regarding the liable party for fee payments and supported the Adjudicating Authority’s view that the obligation to pay arose only upon raising of debit notes not proforma invoices, as per the Mandate Letter. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the engagement of IDBI Capital for similar services, which further indicated a dispute. - Applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations v. Kirusa Software, the Tribunal concluded that the pre-existing disputes were not frivolous or spurious and required further investigation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
