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...
Enforcement against a non-party security provider is permitted where the provider voluntarily issued a cheque as security for the disputed arbitrable liability; the court treated the undated cheque, corresponding to the tribunal claim, as a voluntary guaranty thereby exposing the issuer to enforcement of the foreign arbitral award and corrective award. The decision rejected a requirement to pierce the corporate veil because liability rested on the 2nd respondent's own undertaking; the 1st respondent's insolvency reinforced the necessity of enforcement against the security provider to prevent injustice. The appellate order allows enforcement jointly and severally against both respondents on the cheque basis.
Enforcement against a non-party security provider is permitted where the provider voluntarily issued a cheque as security for the disputed arbitrable liability; the court treated the undated cheque, corresponding to the tribunal claim, as a voluntary guaranty thereby exposing the issuer to enforcement of the foreign arbitral award and corrective award. The decision rejected a requirement to pierce the corporate veil because liability rested on the 2nd respondent's own undertaking; the 1st respondent's insolvency reinforced the necessity of enforcement against the security provider to prevent injustice. The appellate order allows enforcement jointly and severally against both respondents on the cheque basis.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
