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 Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the NCLT's impugned order, which had erroneously directed the Board to take over employees from the ATM and Cash Management Division of Respondent No.2 under the garb of interpreting the Scheme of Arrangement. The Scheme was fully implemented in 2011 with the knowledge of Respondent No.1 union, and multiple wage settlements were entered into without objections. Respondent No.1's application seeking modification of the Scheme's express terms was impermissible and barred by limitation. Only the ATM and Cash Management businesses were transferred, not all employees of the Transferor Company. Interpreting the Scheme to mean all employees stood transferred to the Appellant on the Effective Date was impractical and inconceivable.
The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the NCLT's impugned order, which had erroneously directed the Board to take over employees from the ATM and Cash Management Division of Respondent No.2 under the garb of interpreting the Scheme of Arrangement. The Scheme was fully implemented in 2011 with the knowledge of Respondent No.1 union, and multiple wage settlements were entered into without objections. Respondent No.1's application seeking modification of the Scheme's express terms was impermissible and barred by limitation. Only the ATM and Cash Management businesses were transferred, not all employees of the Transferor Company. Interpreting the Scheme to mean all employees stood transferred to the Appellant on the Effective Date was impractical and inconceivable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
