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 BankruptcySeptember 6, 2024Case LawsAT
Appellants filed claims after the cut-off date for submission of claims in the insolvency resolution process. The approved resolution plan kept such delayed claims alive for six months, requiring the successful resolution applicant (SRA) to address them as per clause 18.4(v). The Adjudicating Authority correctly rejected the appellants' application, observing that their delayed claims must be considered and settled by the SRA in line with clause 18.4(v), which binds all stakeholders, including the appellants and the SRA. The appellate tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order and disposed of the appeal.
Appellants filed claims after the cut-off date for submission of claims in the insolvency resolution process. The approved resolution plan kept such delayed claims alive for six months, requiring the successful resolution applicant (SRA) to address them as per clause 18.4(v). The Adjudicating Authority correctly rejected the appellants' application, observing that their delayed claims must be considered and settled by the SRA in line with clause 18.4(v), which binds all stakeholders, including the appellants and the SRA. The appellate tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order and disposed of the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
