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 NCLAT addressed issues regarding the approval of a Resolution Plan by Suraksha Realty Limited, focusing on the treatment of claims filed in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. The key question was whether YEIDA is a secured creditor of the Corporate Debtor. The NCLAT held that YEIDA is indeed a secured creditor, based on a Supreme Court judgment. The treatment of YEIDA's claim in the Resolution Plan was deemed unsustainable by the Adjudicating Authority. The NCLAT also discussed the claim towards EDC, concluding that it is not a secured claim under the 1976 Act. Consent of YEIDA was not required for treatment of its claims in the CIRP or for transfer of leasehold rights. The NCLAT directed the SRA to pay the Appellant its secured operational debt of Rs.1689 crores, in line with the percentage offered to other secured creditors. The SRA was instructed to make the payment as per the proposed timeline. The appeal was disposed of with these directions.
The NCLAT addressed issues regarding the approval of a Resolution Plan by Suraksha Realty Limited, focusing on the treatment of claims filed in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. The key question was whether YEIDA is a secured creditor of the Corporate Debtor. The NCLAT held that YEIDA is indeed a secured creditor, based on a Supreme Court judgment. The treatment of YEIDA's claim in the Resolution Plan was deemed unsustainable by the Adjudicating Authority. The NCLAT also discussed the claim towards EDC, concluding that it is not a secured claim under the 1976 Act. Consent of YEIDA was not required for treatment of its claims in the CIRP or for transfer of leasehold rights. The NCLAT directed the SRA to pay the Appellant its secured operational debt of Rs.1689 crores, in line with the percentage offered to other secured creditors. The SRA was instructed to make the payment as per the proposed timeline. The appeal was disposed of with these directions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
