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 held that GIDC's termination of lease during the moratorium period was clearly prohibited under Section 14(1) of the IBC. The Tribunal ruled that NCLT had jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) to entertain the Resolution Professional's application challenging such termination, and erred in directing the RP to approach GIDC's Appellate Authority instead. Additionally, NCLAT determined that the Adjudicating Authority improperly remanded the Resolution Plan to the Committee of Creditors without identifying any non-compliance with Section 30(2) of the IBC. The Supreme Court precedent allows remand only when specific violations of Section 30(2) are found. The appeal was allowed, reversing both the jurisdictional finding and the improper remand of the Resolution Plan.
The NCLAT held that GIDC's termination of lease during the moratorium period was clearly prohibited under Section 14(1) of the IBC. The Tribunal ruled that NCLT had jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) to entertain the Resolution Professional's application challenging such termination, and erred in directing the RP to approach GIDC's Appellate Authority instead. Additionally, NCLAT determined that the Adjudicating Authority improperly remanded the Resolution Plan to the Committee of Creditors without identifying any non-compliance with Section 30(2) of the IBC. The Supreme Court precedent allows remand only when specific violations of Section 30(2) are found. The appeal was allowed, reversing both the jurisdictional finding and the improper remand of the Resolution Plan.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
