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...
Cancellation of lease deed by NOIDA did not confer the Corporate Debtor the status of a tenant holding over within Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. NOIDA never assented to the Corporate Debtor's continued possession after cancellation. The Supreme Court's judgment in Nand Ram case clarified that after lease expiry, the lessee's status is a tenant at sufferance, not a tenant holding over, unless the landlord assents to continued possession, creating a new tenancy. NOIDA's mere acceptance of the Corporate Debtor's request for lease restoration did not revive the terminated lease or confer any rights u/s 116. The plot was rightly excluded from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. As a development authority, NOIDA is obligated to monitor project implementation, take proactive steps, and protect homebuyers' interests as unsecured financial creditors under statutory provisions. NOIDA can cancel leases, resume sites, and forfeit payments for breaches by lessees. The NCLAT upheld the adjudicating authority's order excluding the plot from CIRP and rejected the resolution plan approval application.
Cancellation of lease deed by NOIDA did not confer the Corporate Debtor the status of a tenant holding over within Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. NOIDA never assented to the Corporate Debtor's continued possession after cancellation. The Supreme Court's judgment in Nand Ram case clarified that after lease expiry, the lessee's status is a tenant at sufferance, not a tenant holding over, unless the landlord assents to continued possession, creating a new tenancy. NOIDA's mere acceptance of the Corporate Debtor's request for lease restoration did not revive the terminated lease or confer any rights u/s 116. The plot was rightly excluded from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. As a development authority, NOIDA is obligated to monitor project implementation, take proactive steps, and protect homebuyers' interests as unsecured financial creditors under statutory provisions. NOIDA can cancel leases, resume sites, and forfeit payments for breaches by lessees. The NCLAT upheld the adjudicating authority's order excluding the plot from CIRP and rejected the resolution plan approval application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
