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...
Right of appeal under Section 61 is confined to a person whose legal rights are directly affected, and a collateral grievance from a separate CIRP does not confer locus standi. The appellant was not a stakeholder in the CIRP of Afcan Impex Pvt. Ltd., so it was not a person aggrieved. On merits, the Tribunal found no established ineligibility of the resolution applicant under Section 29A: mere association with another company in CIRP was insufficient, no NPA classification material was shown, and disqualification under Section 164 could not be presumed without a formal declaration. Fresh objections were also not entertained in appeal, and the implemented resolution plan was treated as final.
Right of appeal under Section 61 is confined to a person whose legal rights are directly affected, and a collateral grievance from a separate CIRP does not confer locus standi. The appellant was not a stakeholder in the CIRP of Afcan Impex Pvt. Ltd., so it was not a person aggrieved. On merits, the Tribunal found no established ineligibility of the resolution applicant under Section 29A: mere association with another company in CIRP was insufficient, no NPA classification material was shown, and disqualification under Section 164 could not be presumed without a formal declaration. Fresh objections were also not entertained in appeal, and the implemented resolution plan was treated as final.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.