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...
This petition sought to restrain the bank from taking physical possession of two immovable properties. The court held that the petitioner grossly violated undertakings dated 21st September 2022 and 2nd June 2023. Despite being served a demand notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, the petitioner failed to point out any illegality in the bank's actions but succeeded in preventing the bank from taking possession by making representations before DRT and HC regarding intention to clear dues. However, the petitioner failed to avail the extension granted by the court and bank. The prayer for extension was satisfied by orders dated 13th September 2022 and 25th May 2023, but the petitioner failed to make payments within the extended time. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to restraining the bank, and the petition is dismissed.
This petition sought to restrain the bank from taking physical possession of two immovable properties. The court held that the petitioner grossly violated undertakings dated 21st September 2022 and 2nd June 2023. Despite being served a demand notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, the petitioner failed to point out any illegality in the bank's actions but succeeded in preventing the bank from taking possession by making representations before DRT and HC regarding intention to clear dues. However, the petitioner failed to avail the extension granted by the court and bank. The prayer for extension was satisfied by orders dated 13th September 2022 and 25th May 2023, but the petitioner failed to make payments within the extended time. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to restraining the bank, and the petition is dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
