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 dismissed the petition seeking waiver of the pre-deposit requirement under the third proviso to Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, affirming that the borrower must deposit 25% of the debt, including interest up to the appeal's institution date before the DRAT. The borrower failed to produce evidence negating the classification of the loan as an NPA or establish any financial hardship. Alleged accounting errors and partial payments post-Section 13(2) notice were insufficient to demonstrate a prima facie case or justify waiver. The Court held that reliance on a typographical error in loan documents did not warrant interference with the DRAT's dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit directions. Exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was deemed inappropriate as the borrower showed no bona fide intention to repay the debt. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
The HC dismissed the petition seeking waiver of the pre-deposit requirement under the third proviso to Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, affirming that the borrower must deposit 25% of the debt, including interest up to the appeal's institution date before the DRAT. The borrower failed to produce evidence negating the classification of the loan as an NPA or establish any financial hardship. Alleged accounting errors and partial payments post-Section 13(2) notice were insufficient to demonstrate a prima facie case or justify waiver. The Court held that reliance on a typographical error in loan documents did not warrant interference with the DRAT's dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit directions. Exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was deemed inappropriate as the borrower showed no bona fide intention to repay the debt. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
