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 addressed the issue of refund and adjustment of security amount in a claim. It examined Clause 8 of the Claim Form and found that the security amount was already adjusted in the claim itself. The Adjudicating Authority had relied on a Supreme Court judgment concerning the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), which permitted set-off of accounts under Regulation 29. However, the Appellate Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority erred in observing that the anticipated claim adjustment by the Appellant could not be permitted, as the present case involved an actual claim filed with adjustment of the security claim. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal ruled that the Adjudicating Authority's direction to pay Rs. 1,15,33,600/- could not be sustained, and the Appeal was partly allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of refund and adjustment of security amount in a claim. It examined Clause 8 of the Claim Form and found that the security amount was already adjusted in the claim itself. The Adjudicating Authority had relied on a Supreme Court judgment concerning the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), which permitted set-off of accounts under Regulation 29. However, the Appellate Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority erred in observing that the anticipated claim adjustment by the Appellant could not be permitted, as the present case involved an actual claim filed with adjustment of the security claim. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal ruled that the Adjudicating Authority's direction to pay Rs. 1,15,33,600/- could not be sustained, and the Appeal was partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
