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 allowed the appeal and quashed the directions issued in Sub-para 1 of Para 11 of the impugned order, which directed the respondents to involve the applicant/petitioner (Mr. R.P. Trivikram) in all the affairs of Respondent No. 1 Company. The NCLAT held that the directions given in the impugned order were contrary to the earlier order dated 07.08.2018, which was limited to confirming the settlement dated 14.06.2017. The tribunal observed that the impugned directions, obtained through a miscellaneous application, sought to revive the power of the erstwhile Managing Director, Mr. R.P. Trivikram, who had been removed from the post, thereby going beyond the terms of the settlement. The NCLAT ruled that such an extension of the order through miscellaneous proceedings was not permissible, particularly when the case was sought to be reopened in a manner akin to review or recall, which was not allowed under the terms of the earlier order.
The NCLAT allowed the appeal and quashed the directions issued in Sub-para 1 of Para 11 of the impugned order, which directed the respondents to involve the applicant/petitioner (Mr. R.P. Trivikram) in all the affairs of Respondent No. 1 Company. The NCLAT held that the directions given in the impugned order were contrary to the earlier order dated 07.08.2018, which was limited to confirming the settlement dated 14.06.2017. The tribunal observed that the impugned directions, obtained through a miscellaneous application, sought to revive the power of the erstwhile Managing Director, Mr. R.P. Trivikram, who had been removed from the post, thereby going beyond the terms of the settlement. The NCLAT ruled that such an extension of the order through miscellaneous proceedings was not permissible, particularly when the case was sought to be reopened in a manner akin to review or recall, which was not allowed under the terms of the earlier order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
