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...
After approval of a resolution plan, CIRP does not remain a live insolvency proceeding capable of de novo revival merely because the successful resolution applicant later defaults in implementation. The NCLAT held that failure to perform even under a revised payment schedule does not permit the process to be reopened afresh; the statutory course in such circumstances is liquidation. The Tribunal also noted that an applicant who had already sought liquidation under Section 33 could not later take an inconsistent stand and ask for restoration of CIRP and appointment as Resolution Professional. The application for revival was therefore held not maintainable, and the appeal was dismissed, leaving liquidation to proceed.
After approval of a resolution plan, CIRP does not remain a live insolvency proceeding capable of de novo revival merely because the successful resolution applicant later defaults in implementation. The NCLAT held that failure to perform even under a revised payment schedule does not permit the process to be reopened afresh; the statutory course in such circumstances is liquidation. The Tribunal also noted that an applicant who had already sought liquidation under Section 33 could not later take an inconsistent stand and ask for restoration of CIRP and appointment as Resolution Professional. The application for revival was therefore held not maintainable, and the appeal was dismissed, leaving liquidation to proceed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.