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 AT dismissed the appeal, holding that the impugned NCLT order did not effect a provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 s.5(1); instead it merely restrained the Appellants from mortgaging, creating charges or otherwise alienating movable or immovable assets. The Tribunal found no narration or direction constituting attachment, and no provision under the IBC or Companies Act empowering NCLT to attach the properties. Because the restraint served only to preserve third-party interests pending NCLT proceedings and did not amount to provisional attachment intended to secure proceeds of crime for eventual settlement, there was no merit to interfere with the impugned order. Appeal disposed of.
The AT dismissed the appeal, holding that the impugned NCLT order did not effect a provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 s.5(1); instead it merely restrained the Appellants from mortgaging, creating charges or otherwise alienating movable or immovable assets. The Tribunal found no narration or direction constituting attachment, and no provision under the IBC or Companies Act empowering NCLT to attach the properties. Because the restraint served only to preserve third-party interests pending NCLT proceedings and did not amount to provisional attachment intended to secure proceeds of crime for eventual settlement, there was no merit to interfere with the impugned order. Appeal disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
