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 High Court addressed the issue of the relevant date for adjudicating claims in a liquidation scenario. The Court held that claims should be adjudicated up to the date of the provisional liquidator's appointment, not the final winding-up date. The Bank of Baroda had dual claims, one as a secured creditor and one as a Debenture Trustee. The applicant's claim settlement assertions were found factually incorrect as the Bank was entitled to recover a specific amount. Orders upholding these claims were not challenged and finalized. The Court dismissed the application, finding no errors warranting review.
The High Court addressed the issue of the relevant date for adjudicating claims in a liquidation scenario. The Court held that claims should be adjudicated up to the date of the provisional liquidator's appointment, not the final winding-up date. The Bank of Baroda had dual claims, one as a secured creditor and one as a Debenture Trustee. The applicant's claim settlement assertions were found factually incorrect as the Bank was entitled to recover a specific amount. Orders upholding these claims were not challenged and finalized. The Court dismissed the application, finding no errors warranting review.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.