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 SC held that a cash security deposit made before CIRP remained the corporate debtor's property until actual appropriation, and its unilateral adjustment after commencement of CIRP towards pre-CIRP dues violated the moratorium and the pari passu scheme of insolvency law. Because the appellant had no mutual cross-demands justifying set-off and had already lodged its claim in the insolvency process, recovery of those dues had to proceed through that process. The Court also found that no bank guarantee or letter of credit existed; the deposit did not create a security interest or secured creditor status, so authorities on enforcement of such instruments were inapplicable. The deposit could be adjusted only in accordance with the insolvency process and towards post-CIRP dues.
The SC held that a cash security deposit made before CIRP remained the corporate debtor's property until actual appropriation, and its unilateral adjustment after commencement of CIRP towards pre-CIRP dues violated the moratorium and the pari passu scheme of insolvency law. Because the appellant had no mutual cross-demands justifying set-off and had already lodged its claim in the insolvency process, recovery of those dues had to proceed through that process. The Court also found that no bank guarantee or letter of credit existed; the deposit did not create a security interest or secured creditor status, so authorities on enforcement of such instruments were inapplicable. The deposit could be adjusted only in accordance with the insolvency process and towards post-CIRP dues.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
