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...
Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules governs restoration of a petition dismissed for non-appearance and requires an application within thirty days on showing sufficient cause. The NCLAT held that a restoration request filed about five months after dismissal for non-prosecution was time-barred and could not be saved by inherent powers under Rule 11 or the general power to extend time under Rule 15, because those powers cannot override an express procedural mandate. It also found no sufficient cause for condonation, noting repeated absence, prolonged non-prosecution and inadequate vigilance despite reliance on counsel's lapse. The rejection of restoration was upheld.
Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules governs restoration of a petition dismissed for non-appearance and requires an application within thirty days on showing sufficient cause. The NCLAT held that a restoration request filed about five months after dismissal for non-prosecution was time-barred and could not be saved by inherent powers under Rule 11 or the general power to extend time under Rule 15, because those powers cannot override an express procedural mandate. It also found no sufficient cause for condonation, noting repeated absence, prolonged non-prosecution and inadequate vigilance despite reliance on counsel's lapse. The rejection of restoration was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.