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 NCLAT set aside the CIRP initiated by Respondent No. 2 against Respondent No. 1, holding it to be collusive and for purposes other than insolvency resolution. Respondent No. 3 was a director and shareholder in all three companies, controlling over 20% voting shares, thereby qualifying as a related party u/s 5(24)(m)(i) and (iii) of the IBC. The amount disbursed by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 1, being related parties, does not qualify as financial debt per the Supreme Court's ruling in Phoenix ARC case. The NCLAT relied on Hytone Merchants case, which allowed setting aside CIRP if collusion is proved despite fulfilling Section 7 requirements. Respondent No. 3's presence across companies and lack of denial regarding allegations indicated collusion between Respondents No. 1 and 2.
The NCLAT set aside the CIRP initiated by Respondent No. 2 against Respondent No. 1, holding it to be collusive and for purposes other than insolvency resolution. Respondent No. 3 was a director and shareholder in all three companies, controlling over 20% voting shares, thereby qualifying as a related party u/s 5(24)(m)(i) and (iii) of the IBC. The amount disbursed by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 1, being related parties, does not qualify as financial debt per the Supreme Court's ruling in Phoenix ARC case. The NCLAT relied on Hytone Merchants case, which allowed setting aside CIRP if collusion is proved despite fulfilling Section 7 requirements. Respondent No. 3's presence across companies and lack of denial regarding allegations indicated collusion between Respondents No. 1 and 2.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
