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 and refused restoration of the company petition under Section 9, affirming the adjudicating authority's rejection of revival and delay-condonation applications under NCLT Rule 48. The Tribunal held that repeated non-appearance of the Appellant's designated counsel evidenced lack of due diligence and absence of sufficient cause, not mere procedural lapse; shifting blame to former counsel and belatedly filing the restoration and condonation applications were insufficient. Restoration under Rule 48(2) was held available only on bona fide, prompt, and satisfactorily explained absence. Given repeated defaults, absence of credible justification and inaction, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal and refused restoration of the company petition under Section 9, affirming the adjudicating authority's rejection of revival and delay-condonation applications under NCLT Rule 48. The Tribunal held that repeated non-appearance of the Appellant's designated counsel evidenced lack of due diligence and absence of sufficient cause, not mere procedural lapse; shifting blame to former counsel and belatedly filing the restoration and condonation applications were insufficient. Restoration under Rule 48(2) was held available only on bona fide, prompt, and satisfactorily explained absence. Given repeated defaults, absence of credible justification and inaction, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
