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...
HC dismissed the appeal and upheld the winding-up order under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant-company failed to refund a Rs.50 lakh security deposit after contract termination despite its manufacturing business declining and supply difficulties. The court found no bona fide dispute existed, rejecting the company's contradictory and implausible defenses as lacking merit. Financial institutions had initiated recovery proceedings for crores, a receiver was appointed, and no production activities occurred for over five years. The company's offers to pay during proceedings without actual payment, combined with its financial misfortunes, were insufficient to resist winding-up. The court concluded the appellant-company was liable to repay the security deposit with interest, affirming the lower court's judgment.
HC dismissed the appeal and upheld the winding-up order under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant-company failed to refund a Rs.50 lakh security deposit after contract termination despite its manufacturing business declining and supply difficulties. The court found no bona fide dispute existed, rejecting the company's contradictory and implausible defenses as lacking merit. Financial institutions had initiated recovery proceedings for crores, a receiver was appointed, and no production activities occurred for over five years. The company's offers to pay during proceedings without actual payment, combined with its financial misfortunes, were insufficient to resist winding-up. The court concluded the appellant-company was liable to repay the security deposit with interest, affirming the lower court's judgment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
