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 dismissed the appeal and upheld the Adjudicating Authority's order holding that the purported lease deed dated 24.09.2007 is void and unenforceable. The Tribunal found the deed was not executed by persons authorised under the deed itself, was signed by an unauthorised employee, and no competent evidence proved payment of the substantial upfront consideration or advance rent alleged therein. Consequently, no leasehold rights in the specified land and plant transferred to the corporate debtor, and the assets cannot be treated as the corporate debtor's property. The Tribunal further held that reliance by a financial institution on the void deed does not validate it, and the impugned order dated 14.03.2024 is affirmed; appeals dismissed.
NCLAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Adjudicating Authority's order holding that the purported lease deed dated 24.09.2007 is void and unenforceable. The Tribunal found the deed was not executed by persons authorised under the deed itself, was signed by an unauthorised employee, and no competent evidence proved payment of the substantial upfront consideration or advance rent alleged therein. Consequently, no leasehold rights in the specified land and plant transferred to the corporate debtor, and the assets cannot be treated as the corporate debtor's property. The Tribunal further held that reliance by a financial institution on the void deed does not validate it, and the impugned order dated 14.03.2024 is affirmed; appeals dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
