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...
A resolution plan that expressly addresses insolvency resolution process (CIRP) costs makes those costs final and unassailable; however, where claimed CIRP costs were never placed before or approved by the committee of creditors as CIRP costs, those claims cannot be allowed. The tribunal examined merits and found the impugned related-party transaction approvals were for business continuity, not approvals of CIRP cost under the CIRP Regulations, so the adjudicating authority correctly rejected the application seeking payment. Consequently, the appeals challenging that rejection were dismissed for lack of merit.
A resolution plan that expressly addresses insolvency resolution process (CIRP) costs makes those costs final and unassailable; however, where claimed CIRP costs were never placed before or approved by the committee of creditors as CIRP costs, those claims cannot be allowed. The tribunal examined merits and found the impugned related-party transaction approvals were for business continuity, not approvals of CIRP cost under the CIRP Regulations, so the adjudicating authority correctly rejected the application seeking payment. Consequently, the appeals challenging that rejection were dismissed for lack of merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.