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 dominant issue was whether a Section 9 IBC application could be maintained by re-segregating invoices to assert default beyond the Section 10A protected period and to defeat dismissal by the Adjudicating Authority. The tribunal held that once the operational creditor expressly pleaded that only seven invoices aggregating to Rs. 1.65 crore were outside Section 10A, it could not later add further invoices to inflate default, as this would amount to shifting the goalposts and using IBC as a coercive recovery mechanism. Since the corporate debtor had deposited Rs. 1.65 crore by FDR with the registry towards those seven invoices, rejection of the Section 9 application was upheld and the appeal was dismissed, with liberty to pursue civil remedies for Section 10A-period claims. - NCLAT
The dominant issue was whether a Section 9 IBC application could be maintained by re-segregating invoices to assert default beyond the Section 10A protected period and to defeat dismissal by the Adjudicating Authority. The tribunal held that once the operational creditor expressly pleaded that only seven invoices aggregating to Rs. 1.65 crore were outside Section 10A, it could not later add further invoices to inflate default, as this would amount to shifting the goalposts and using IBC as a coercive recovery mechanism. Since the corporate debtor had deposited Rs. 1.65 crore by FDR with the registry towards those seven invoices, rejection of the Section 9 application was upheld and the appeal was dismissed, with liberty to pursue civil remedies for Section 10A-period claims. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
