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 that Fuel Surcharge (FS) and Special Fuel Surcharge (SFS) are statutory charges that become due only upon billing, and cannot be considered pre-insolvency liabilities extinguishable under a resolution plan. These charges, arising from variations in power purchase costs and Supreme Court decisions on change in law, are recovered in installments as mandated by RERC. The Tribunal found no conflict between the Electricity Act and IBC, applying harmonious construction between the statutes. The appellant's contention that Section 238 of IBC overrides the Electricity Act was rejected as no specific conflicting provision was identified. The appellant must pay outstanding FS and SFS within 60 days or face penalties under the Electricity Act.
The NCLAT upheld that Fuel Surcharge (FS) and Special Fuel Surcharge (SFS) are statutory charges that become due only upon billing, and cannot be considered pre-insolvency liabilities extinguishable under a resolution plan. These charges, arising from variations in power purchase costs and Supreme Court decisions on change in law, are recovered in installments as mandated by RERC. The Tribunal found no conflict between the Electricity Act and IBC, applying harmonious construction between the statutes. The appellant's contention that Section 238 of IBC overrides the Electricity Act was rejected as no specific conflicting provision was identified. The appellant must pay outstanding FS and SFS within 60 days or face penalties under the Electricity Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
