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...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The NCLAT upheld the direction that the appellant bank must transfer the income tax refund amount received during the CIRP into the corporate debtor's CIRP account maintained by the RP, rejecting the appellant's claim of a security interest preventing such transfer. The tribunal found that the amount belonged to the corporate debtor and could not be withheld or redirected by the appellant. The appellant's refusal to transfer the funds post-order led to a contempt application, which was allowed, though the adjudicating authority only directed compliance without penal action. The appellant's subsequent attempt to recall the transfer order was dismissed for lack of grounds. The realization of the appellant's security interest and claims is to be addressed separately by the liquidator under the applicable law. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the impugned orders in favor of the liquidator's application.
The NCLAT upheld the direction that the appellant bank must transfer the income tax refund amount received during the CIRP into the corporate debtor's CIRP account maintained by the RP, rejecting the appellant's claim of a security interest preventing such transfer. The tribunal found that the amount belonged to the corporate debtor and could not be withheld or redirected by the appellant. The appellant's refusal to transfer the funds post-order led to a contempt application, which was allowed, though the adjudicating authority only directed compliance without penal action. The appellant's subsequent attempt to recall the transfer order was dismissed for lack of grounds. The realization of the appellant's security interest and claims is to be addressed separately by the liquidator under the applicable law. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the impugned orders in favor of the liquidator's application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.