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 dismissed the appeal challenging the NCLT's impugned order dated 05.02.2024 concerning the sale/purchase agreement involving the appellant group. The Tribunal held that Section 242(2)(f) of the Companies Act, 2013 was inapplicable as no permission was sought from the NCLT for the tripartite agreement dated 23.01.2024, which was not placed on record before the NCLT. The OTS sanction letter conditioned settlement on NCLT approval, which was never obtained. The appellants failed to seek modification or termination of any agreement under Section 242(2)(f). The deposited amount of Rs. 15.75 crores (plus interest) and the proposed infusion of Rs. 1 crore by the respondents underscored the financial stakes involved. Interfering with the NCLT order would be detrimental to the company and shareholders. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the impugned order was found to be reasoned and justified.
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging the NCLT's impugned order dated 05.02.2024 concerning the sale/purchase agreement involving the appellant group. The Tribunal held that Section 242(2)(f) of the Companies Act, 2013 was inapplicable as no permission was sought from the NCLT for the tripartite agreement dated 23.01.2024, which was not placed on record before the NCLT. The OTS sanction letter conditioned settlement on NCLT approval, which was never obtained. The appellants failed to seek modification or termination of any agreement under Section 242(2)(f). The deposited amount of Rs. 15.75 crores (plus interest) and the proposed infusion of Rs. 1 crore by the respondents underscored the financial stakes involved. Interfering with the NCLT order would be detrimental to the company and shareholders. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the impugned order was found to be reasoned and justified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
