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...
NCLAT upholds the Adjudicating Authority's approval of the resolution plan and dismisses the appeal. The Tribunal held that contested clauses (5(c), (h), (i), (j), (l)) do not divest the corporate debtor's contractual ownership in the 10.19-acre land, nor contravene the MoU (24.01.2008) or JDA (16.06.2008); the JDA expressly contemplated appropriation at Rs.1,400/sq. ft. and Clause 5(m) binds the resolution applicant to JDA obligations. The plan was not contingent or conditional in violation of Section 30(2)(e) IBC, since payment timelines and absence of an exit clause rendered it binding. The successful resolution applicant met eligibility criteria. No error in the AA's order; appeal dismissed.
NCLAT upholds the Adjudicating Authority's approval of the resolution plan and dismisses the appeal. The Tribunal held that contested clauses (5(c), (h), (i), (j), (l)) do not divest the corporate debtor's contractual ownership in the 10.19-acre land, nor contravene the MoU (24.01.2008) or JDA (16.06.2008); the JDA expressly contemplated appropriation at Rs.1,400/sq. ft. and Clause 5(m) binds the resolution applicant to JDA obligations. The plan was not contingent or conditional in violation of Section 30(2)(e) IBC, since payment timelines and absence of an exit clause rendered it binding. The successful resolution applicant met eligibility criteria. No error in the AA's order; appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
