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 held that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC precludes financial creditors from enforcing security or recovering amounts from the corporate debtor. However, the Rs.8,92,980 paid to the financial creditor was not from the corporate debtor's account but from a co-applicant's separate account, thus excluding the transaction from the ambit of preferential transactions under Section 43. The tribunal found no merit in the adjudicating authority's direction to reverse the payment, as it lacked statutory support under Sections 14 or 43 of the IBC. Furthermore, there was no prohibition on authorized persons taking possession of the corporate debtor's assets. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order directing reversal of the payment was set aside.
The NCLAT held that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC precludes financial creditors from enforcing security or recovering amounts from the corporate debtor. However, the Rs.8,92,980 paid to the financial creditor was not from the corporate debtor's account but from a co-applicant's separate account, thus excluding the transaction from the ambit of preferential transactions under Section 43. The tribunal found no merit in the adjudicating authority's direction to reverse the payment, as it lacked statutory support under Sections 14 or 43 of the IBC. Furthermore, there was no prohibition on authorized persons taking possession of the corporate debtor's assets. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order directing reversal of the payment was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
