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 denied the applicant's request for video recording of the proceedings under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, finding no special reason or exceptional grounds to justify such recording. The applicant lacked locus as it did not participate in the CIRP or plan approval stages of the cases involving ESIL and OSPIL, whose resolution plans were approved and implemented with the sanction of the Adjudicating Authority, this Tribunal, and the Apex Court. The applicant's first involvement was a recall application filed in 2023, well after the approval and implementation of the resolution plans. Given these circumstances and the absence of compelling considerations, the Tribunal held that the applicant must make its submissions in the appeal without video recording. The application for recording was accordingly dismissed.
The NCLAT denied the applicant's request for video recording of the proceedings under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, finding no special reason or exceptional grounds to justify such recording. The applicant lacked locus as it did not participate in the CIRP or plan approval stages of the cases involving ESIL and OSPIL, whose resolution plans were approved and implemented with the sanction of the Adjudicating Authority, this Tribunal, and the Apex Court. The applicant's first involvement was a recall application filed in 2023, well after the approval and implementation of the resolution plans. Given these circumstances and the absence of compelling considerations, the Tribunal held that the applicant must make its submissions in the appeal without video recording. The application for recording was accordingly dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
