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 upheld the Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the appellant's prayer to recall the admission order. Regarding withdrawal of CIRP u/s 12A of the IBC, the NCLAT held that since the Section 7 application was filed by respondents 6-9, and not by the applicants who initiated it, compliance with Section 12A read with Regulation 30A cannot be made, and withdrawal u/s 12A is not permissible. However, the NCLAT observed that if the Adjudicating Authority concludes that the ingredients of Section 65 are attracted (application filed with fraudulent/malicious intent), it can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to close the CIRP proceedings. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in SBI vs. Consortium of Murari Lal Jalan & Florian Fritsch, the NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority can exercise inherent powers in appropriate cases. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of.
The NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the appellant's prayer to recall the admission order. Regarding withdrawal of CIRP u/s 12A of the IBC, the NCLAT held that since the Section 7 application was filed by respondents 6-9, and not by the applicants who initiated it, compliance with Section 12A read with Regulation 30A cannot be made, and withdrawal u/s 12A is not permissible. However, the NCLAT observed that if the Adjudicating Authority concludes that the ingredients of Section 65 are attracted (application filed with fraudulent/malicious intent), it can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to close the CIRP proceedings. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in SBI vs. Consortium of Murari Lal Jalan & Florian Fritsch, the NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority can exercise inherent powers in appropriate cases. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
