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...
NCLAT affirmed the recall of order dated 04.06.2024 in a Section 7 IBC petition involving homebuyers. The Corporate Debtor had misrepresented facts regarding the number of unit holders and eligibility requirements under the second proviso to Section 7(1) of IBC. While the Corporate Debtor claimed 282 unit holders with only 12 allottees as petitioners, evidence showed the homebuyers had filed compliance affidavits with supporting MAHARERA certificates. The Tribunal held that inherent powers u/r 11 of NCLT Rules could be invoked to prevent abuse of process where orders were obtained through misrepresentation. The recall was justified as the original order was not decided on merits but influenced by distorted facts and procedural irregularities.
NCLAT affirmed the recall of order dated 04.06.2024 in a Section 7 IBC petition involving homebuyers. The Corporate Debtor had misrepresented facts regarding the number of unit holders and eligibility requirements under the second proviso to Section 7(1) of IBC. While the Corporate Debtor claimed 282 unit holders with only 12 allottees as petitioners, evidence showed the homebuyers had filed compliance affidavits with supporting MAHARERA certificates. The Tribunal held that inherent powers u/r 11 of NCLT Rules could be invoked to prevent abuse of process where orders were obtained through misrepresentation. The recall was justified as the original order was not decided on merits but influenced by distorted facts and procedural irregularities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
