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 impugned order refusing to fix professional fees for the Appellant (formerly the IRP) for the interim stay period. The AT held that the High Court's order operating as a "stay of proceedings" effectively precluded any CIRP functions between 14.08.2023 and 18.03.2025, rendering activities undertaken by the IRP during that exclusionary period non-operative for CIRP purposes. There was no evidence of effective discharge of official duties in furtherance of CIRP that would satisfy quid pro quo for fee entitlement. Consequently, denial of fees for the 19-month stay period was justified and the appeal was dismissed.
NCLAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order refusing to fix professional fees for the Appellant (formerly the IRP) for the interim stay period. The AT held that the High Court's order operating as a "stay of proceedings" effectively precluded any CIRP functions between 14.08.2023 and 18.03.2025, rendering activities undertaken by the IRP during that exclusionary period non-operative for CIRP purposes. There was no evidence of effective discharge of official duties in furtherance of CIRP that would satisfy quid pro quo for fee entitlement. Consequently, denial of fees for the 19-month stay period was justified and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
