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 allowed the appeals and set aside the NCLT orders, holding the two Section 95 petitions by the appellant/financial creditor to initiate PIRP against anonymized guarantors were not time-barred. The Tribunal clarified that the date of default stated in the petition indicates a fact of cause of action but need not be the terminus a quo for limitation, which is fact-specific. It held 20.11.2018 as the relevant terminus a quo, excluded the COVID suspension period (15.03.2020-28.02.2022) for computation, and concluded limitation extended into 2024. Consequently the petitions filed in November and December 2022 fell within the extended limitation period.
The NCLAT allowed the appeals and set aside the NCLT orders, holding the two Section 95 petitions by the appellant/financial creditor to initiate PIRP against anonymized guarantors were not time-barred. The Tribunal clarified that the date of default stated in the petition indicates a fact of cause of action but need not be the terminus a quo for limitation, which is fact-specific. It held 20.11.2018 as the relevant terminus a quo, excluded the COVID suspension period (15.03.2020-28.02.2022) for computation, and concluded limitation extended into 2024. Consequently the petitions filed in November and December 2022 fell within the extended limitation period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.