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 allowed the appeal and set aside Section 9 proceedings under IBC against the Corporate Debtor. The tribunal found a pre-existing dispute between parties involving complex transactions and intermingled disputes between Promoters of both entities. Though transactions occurred in a running account for supply of goods, additional disputes regarding premises rental arrangements were evident. Following Mobilox Innovations precedent, NCLAT held that disputes were not patently feeble but required proper adjudication. While limitation period was not an issue due to recent part-payment extending it by 3 years, the tribunal concluded Section 9 petition was not maintainable due to genuine pre-existing disputes requiring examination beyond corporate veil.
NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside Section 9 proceedings under IBC against the Corporate Debtor. The tribunal found a pre-existing dispute between parties involving complex transactions and intermingled disputes between Promoters of both entities. Though transactions occurred in a running account for supply of goods, additional disputes regarding premises rental arrangements were evident. Following Mobilox Innovations precedent, NCLAT held that disputes were not patently feeble but required proper adjudication. While limitation period was not an issue due to recent part-payment extending it by 3 years, the tribunal concluded Section 9 petition was not maintainable due to genuine pre-existing disputes requiring examination beyond corporate veil.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.