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 Tribunal held that homebuyers as a class of creditors met the quantitative threshold for initiating a Section 7 application because the corporate debtor's developed-share entitlement produced sufficient allotted units; therefore the Section 7 petition should not have been dismissed on threshold grounds. The Tribunal treated the development agreement allocation (18% share) and actual units sold by the corporate debtor as relevant to eligibility at filing, and concluded the threshold is assessed at filing rather than later-consequence: remand to the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal also noted maintainability of proceedings against related landowner/developer parties forming the same project and recorded ex parte conduct by the corporate debtor, without deciding merits.
The Tribunal held that homebuyers as a class of creditors met the quantitative threshold for initiating a Section 7 application because the corporate debtor's developed-share entitlement produced sufficient allotted units; therefore the Section 7 petition should not have been dismissed on threshold grounds. The Tribunal treated the development agreement allocation (18% share) and actual units sold by the corporate debtor as relevant to eligibility at filing, and concluded the threshold is assessed at filing rather than later-consequence: remand to the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal also noted maintainability of proceedings against related landowner/developer parties forming the same project and recorded ex parte conduct by the corporate debtor, without deciding merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
