Country of Origin Certificates and declared transaction value supported preferential customs exemption where authenticity and invoice prices remained ...
Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
During CIRP, moratorium protection under the Insolvency Code preserves the corporate debtor's possession and status quo, preventing lease termination, re-entry and eviction that would recover property from the debtor. The High Court construed Section 14 broadly to cover statutory eviction proceedings as well as civil suits, and treated the explanation to Section 14(1) as clarificatory rather than an exception permitting breach-based action. It further held that any inconsistency between the Public Premises Act and the insolvency regime was resolved by Section 238 in favour of the Code. On that basis, the lease termination and eviction orders were quashed and the appeal was dismissed.
During CIRP, moratorium protection under the Insolvency Code preserves the corporate debtor's possession and status quo, preventing lease termination, re-entry and eviction that would recover property from the debtor. The High Court construed Section 14 broadly to cover statutory eviction proceedings as well as civil suits, and treated the explanation to Section 14(1) as clarificatory rather than an exception permitting breach-based action. It further held that any inconsistency between the Public Premises Act and the insolvency regime was resolved by Section 238 in favour of the Code. On that basis, the lease termination and eviction orders were quashed and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.