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...
Issue was whether amendment of a personal guarantor insolvency petition under s.95 IBC to change the date of default by adding a loan recall notice dated 05.04.2016 was permissible, despite objections on limitation and lack of proper invocation of guarantee. The tribunal held that amendment was justified since the creditor could not produce proof of service of an earlier statutory demand, and the added recall notice formed the factual basis to be tested on merits. Allowing amendment did not amount to any finding on limitation or validity of guarantee invocation, which could be urged in reply and decided by the adjudicating authority. Appeal was dismissed. - NCLAT
Issue was whether amendment of a personal guarantor insolvency petition under s.95 IBC to change the date of default by adding a loan recall notice dated 05.04.2016 was permissible, despite objections on limitation and lack of proper invocation of guarantee. The tribunal held that amendment was justified since the creditor could not produce proof of service of an earlier statutory demand, and the added recall notice formed the factual basis to be tested on merits. Allowing amendment did not amount to any finding on limitation or validity of guarantee invocation, which could be urged in reply and decided by the adjudicating authority. Appeal was dismissed. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
