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 dismissed appeal concerning classification of security deposit as financial debt under IBC. Appellant transferred Rs. 2,37,61,440/- to Corporate Debtor under MoU for premises handover. Though money was disbursed, transaction lacked essential elements of financial debt under Section 5(8). Security deposit was not disbursed for time value of money as no interest accrued from disbursement date. Interest clause in MoU was purely penal, triggered only upon breach/termination. Clause 8.5 explicitly established deposit's purpose as security rather than mobilization advance for construction. Transaction's nature being security deposit without commercial borrowing characteristics disqualified it as financial debt under Code.
NCLAT dismissed appeal concerning classification of security deposit as financial debt under IBC. Appellant transferred Rs. 2,37,61,440/- to Corporate Debtor under MoU for premises handover. Though money was disbursed, transaction lacked essential elements of financial debt under Section 5(8). Security deposit was not disbursed for time value of money as no interest accrued from disbursement date. Interest clause in MoU was purely penal, triggered only upon breach/termination. Clause 8.5 explicitly established deposit's purpose as security rather than mobilization advance for construction. Transaction's nature being security deposit without commercial borrowing characteristics disqualified it as financial debt under Code.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.