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...
Personal guarantors disputed admission of an insolvency application under s.95 IBC by claiming full repayment, faulty verification in the s.99 report, pendency of DRT recovery proceedings, and defective notice. Guarantor liability was held to continue for the unpaid balance because an approved resolution plan binds stakeholders under s.31 IBC and, absent an express discharge, guarantors remain co-extensively liable under s.128 Contract Act; no no-dues/settlement/novation or other extinguishment document was proved, so the plea of discharge failed. Pendency of DRT proceedings was held not to bar s.95 action, so admission was upheld. Alleged notice/verification lapses caused no prejudice where debt and default stood established, so the appeals were dismissed. - NCLAT
Personal guarantors disputed admission of an insolvency application under s.95 IBC by claiming full repayment, faulty verification in the s.99 report, pendency of DRT recovery proceedings, and defective notice. Guarantor liability was held to continue for the unpaid balance because an approved resolution plan binds stakeholders under s.31 IBC and, absent an express discharge, guarantors remain co-extensively liable under s.128 Contract Act; no no-dues/settlement/novation or other extinguishment document was proved, so the plea of discharge failed. Pendency of DRT proceedings was held not to bar s.95 action, so admission was upheld. Alleged notice/verification lapses caused no prejudice where debt and default stood established, so the appeals were dismissed. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
