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...
Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) to adjudicate upon a closure notice issued prior to the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The key points are: The Adjudicating Authority did not determine its jurisdiction to pronounce on the closure notice dated 31.07.2017, issued before CIRP initiation. After CIRP initiation, all claims must be filed and examined within the CIRP/Liquidation Process. The High Court and Supreme Court orders granted liberty to raise claims and contentions before NCLT but did not adjudicate on NCLT's jurisdiction over the pre-CIRP closure notice. The Supreme Court's judgment in Embassy Property case clarified NCLAT's limited jurisdiction u/s 60(5). The closure notice, issued under the state Industrial Disputes Act prior to CIRP, is unrelated to the CIRP process. Hence, the Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected entertaining the challenge to the pre-CIRP closure notice, being outside its competence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the Adjudicating Authority did not err in rejecting the application challenging the pre-CIRP closure notice.
Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) to adjudicate upon a closure notice issued prior to the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The key points are: The Adjudicating Authority did not determine its jurisdiction to pronounce on the closure notice dated 31.07.2017, issued before CIRP initiation. After CIRP initiation, all claims must be filed and examined within the CIRP/Liquidation Process. The High Court and Supreme Court orders granted liberty to raise claims and contentions before NCLT but did not adjudicate on NCLT's jurisdiction over the pre-CIRP closure notice. The Supreme Court's judgment in Embassy Property case clarified NCLAT's limited jurisdiction u/s 60(5). The closure notice, issued under the state Industrial Disputes Act prior to CIRP, is unrelated to the CIRP process. Hence, the Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected entertaining the challenge to the pre-CIRP closure notice, being outside its competence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the Adjudicating Authority did not err in rejecting the application challenging the pre-CIRP closure notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.