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 SC allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order directing restoration of possession to the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent failed to establish a prima facie case of pre-existing tenancy rights, lacking convincing evidence such as rent receipts or bills predating the SARFAESI demand notice. Reliance on post-demand rent deposits and uncorroborated references to tenancy were insufficient. The 1st Respondent's delay in asserting tenancy rights and failure to approach the DRT timely undermined his claim. The High Court erred by ignoring these factors and ordering mandatory restoration without a compelling case. Consequently, possession remains with the Appellant, and status quo is maintained pending the securitization application's disposal.
The SC allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order directing restoration of possession to the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent failed to establish a prima facie case of pre-existing tenancy rights, lacking convincing evidence such as rent receipts or bills predating the SARFAESI demand notice. Reliance on post-demand rent deposits and uncorroborated references to tenancy were insufficient. The 1st Respondent's delay in asserting tenancy rights and failure to approach the DRT timely undermined his claim. The High Court erred by ignoring these factors and ordering mandatory restoration without a compelling case. Consequently, possession remains with the Appellant, and status quo is maintained pending the securitization application's disposal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
