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, upholding the Adjudicating Authority's orders and affirming that no violation of natural justice occurred as the appellant was afforded multiple opportunities yet repeatedly delayed proceedings and failed to controvert the factual matrix. The Tribunal held that alleged fraudulent share transactions by the appellant, a KMP, demonstrated intent to defraud creditors and vitiated the impugned transactions, thereby invoking Section 66(1) of the Code. The court rejected the contention that Section 66(1) cannot operate absent Section 66(2), observing prior authority addressed only Section 66(2) and does not preclude independent operation of Section 66(1). Appeal dismissed with impugned orders sustained.
NCLAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the Adjudicating Authority's orders and affirming that no violation of natural justice occurred as the appellant was afforded multiple opportunities yet repeatedly delayed proceedings and failed to controvert the factual matrix. The Tribunal held that alleged fraudulent share transactions by the appellant, a KMP, demonstrated intent to defraud creditors and vitiated the impugned transactions, thereby invoking Section 66(1) of the Code. The court rejected the contention that Section 66(1) cannot operate absent Section 66(2), observing prior authority addressed only Section 66(2) and does not preclude independent operation of Section 66(1). Appeal dismissed with impugned orders sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
