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...
Insolvency and BankruptcyAugust 3, 2024Case LawsHC
The High Court rejected the resolution professional's petition seeking a stay on the acquisition process under the Slum Rehabilitation Act, 1995. It held that provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) cannot prevail over the welfare statute aimed at protecting slum dwellers. Allowing the corporate debtor's "asset" preservation would deny slum dwellers the statutory promise of redeveloped premises indefinitely, at their cost, despite no fault. The IBC provisions are not meant to defeat slum redevelopment and allied statutes. Granting relief would put a premium on corporate wrongdoing and allow defaulting corporate debtors to secure restraint against slum dwellers' welfare through the resolution professional. The resolution professional's argument for a preferential right to self-redevelop was rejected as untenable since the corporate debtor had already obtained a Letter of Intent while being the owner. The petition was dismissed.
The High Court rejected the resolution professional's petition seeking a stay on the acquisition process under the Slum Rehabilitation Act, 1995. It held that provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) cannot prevail over the welfare statute aimed at protecting slum dwellers. Allowing the corporate debtor's "asset" preservation would deny slum dwellers the statutory promise of redeveloped premises indefinitely, at their cost, despite no fault. The IBC provisions are not meant to defeat slum redevelopment and allied statutes. Granting relief would put a premium on corporate wrongdoing and allow defaulting corporate debtors to secure restraint against slum dwellers' welfare through the resolution professional. The resolution professional's argument for a preferential right to self-redevelop was rejected as untenable since the corporate debtor had already obtained a Letter of Intent while being the owner. The petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
