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 HC determined that the third respondent, with an asset size of Rs.16.30 crores as of March 31, 2024, failed to meet the Rs.100 crores threshold established in the February 24, 2020 Notification. Consequently, the respondent does not qualify as a "financial institution" under Section 2(1)(m)(iv) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and therefore cannot be considered a "secured creditor" entitled to invoke Section 14 provisions. Since the respondent lacked standing to file an application with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for possession of secured assets, the Court issued a writ of Prohibition, finding that the jurisdictional prerequisite was not satisfied. The application was accordingly disposed of.
The HC determined that the third respondent, with an asset size of Rs.16.30 crores as of March 31, 2024, failed to meet the Rs.100 crores threshold established in the February 24, 2020 Notification. Consequently, the respondent does not qualify as a "financial institution" under Section 2(1)(m)(iv) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and therefore cannot be considered a "secured creditor" entitled to invoke Section 14 provisions. Since the respondent lacked standing to file an application with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for possession of secured assets, the Court issued a writ of Prohibition, finding that the jurisdictional prerequisite was not satisfied. The application was accordingly disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
