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...
Dismissal of Section 7 application under IBC by Adjudicating Authority upheld. Appellant argued amount of interest could be claimed u/s 7, but failed to notify Adjudicating Authority about alleged bonafide mistake in Section 9 application where it averred amount was an investment instead of loan. Appellant paid principal amount but pursued appeal for interest. Held, filing Section 7 petition after taking contrary stance in Section 9 application is an abuse of process. Appellant's conduct deprecated as unacceptable practice of changing stance as per convenience, dragging respondent into unnecessary litigation. Appeal dismissed with cost of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on appellant, payable to respondent within 30 days.
Dismissal of Section 7 application under IBC by Adjudicating Authority upheld. Appellant argued amount of interest could be claimed u/s 7, but failed to notify Adjudicating Authority about alleged bonafide mistake in Section 9 application where it averred amount was an investment instead of loan. Appellant paid principal amount but pursued appeal for interest. Held, filing Section 7 petition after taking contrary stance in Section 9 application is an abuse of process. Appellant's conduct deprecated as unacceptable practice of changing stance as per convenience, dragging respondent into unnecessary litigation. Appeal dismissed with cost of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on appellant, payable to respondent within 30 days.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
