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...
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dismissed an appeal regarding the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as the debt in question did not qualify as "operational debt" under Section 5(21) of the IBC. The Tribunal found that the security deposit in question was not directly linked to any goods or services provided, thus falling outside the scope of operational debt. Additionally, the presence of a pre-existing dispute between the parties rendered the application under Section 9 of the IBC not maintainable, in line with legal precedents such as Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dismissed an appeal regarding the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as the debt in question did not qualify as "operational debt" under Section 5(21) of the IBC. The Tribunal found that the security deposit in question was not directly linked to any goods or services provided, thus falling outside the scope of operational debt. Additionally, the presence of a pre-existing dispute between the parties rendered the application under Section 9 of the IBC not maintainable, in line with legal precedents such as Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
