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...
The Noida authority had terminated the lease deed of the subject land prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor. Despite this, the suspended management wrongfully included the subject plot in the resolution plan, claiming the lease was still subsisting. The Adjudicating Authority correctly held that since the lease was cancelled before CIRP initiation, the Corporate Debtor had lost possession rights, and the moratorium u/s 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) would not apply. The Resolution Professional (RP) should not have treated the cancelled plot as an asset and included it in the resolution plan without proper verification. The RP's actions, including preparing the Information Memorandum and obtaining Committee of Creditors' approval for the resolution plan containing the cancelled plot, were inappropriate. The RP failed to play a pivotal role in ensuring transparency and accountability during CIRP. The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the Adjudicating Authority's findings regarding the RP's unbecoming and unfair conduct, dismissing the appeal.
The Noida authority had terminated the lease deed of the subject land prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor. Despite this, the suspended management wrongfully included the subject plot in the resolution plan, claiming the lease was still subsisting. The Adjudicating Authority correctly held that since the lease was cancelled before CIRP initiation, the Corporate Debtor had lost possession rights, and the moratorium u/s 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) would not apply. The Resolution Professional (RP) should not have treated the cancelled plot as an asset and included it in the resolution plan without proper verification. The RP's actions, including preparing the Information Memorandum and obtaining Committee of Creditors' approval for the resolution plan containing the cancelled plot, were inappropriate. The RP failed to play a pivotal role in ensuring transparency and accountability during CIRP. The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the Adjudicating Authority's findings regarding the RP's unbecoming and unfair conduct, dismissing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
