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 allowed the appeal and set aside the adjudicating authority's order admitting the Section 9 application, holding that a clear pre-existing dispute existed and a civil suit filed by the operational creditor, claiming the same sum as in the demand notice, was pending prior to issuance of the notice. The Tribunal found the corporate debtor's defence was plausible and not a feeble or unsupported contention; notice of the suit was placed before the operational creditor and the adjudicating authority. Under the scheme of Sections 8 and 9 (including Section 9(5)(ii)(d)), admission was impermissible where suit/arbitration predates the demand notice, so the Section 9 admission was erroneous.
NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the adjudicating authority's order admitting the Section 9 application, holding that a clear pre-existing dispute existed and a civil suit filed by the operational creditor, claiming the same sum as in the demand notice, was pending prior to issuance of the notice. The Tribunal found the corporate debtor's defence was plausible and not a feeble or unsupported contention; notice of the suit was placed before the operational creditor and the adjudicating authority. Under the scheme of Sections 8 and 9 (including Section 9(5)(ii)(d)), admission was impermissible where suit/arbitration predates the demand notice, so the Section 9 admission was erroneous.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.