Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
Pendency of CIRP against a promoter does not, by itself, bar a society's application for deemed conveyance under MOFA. The Court held that the promoter's duty to convey the land and building arises from statutory and contractual obligations, and that deemed conveyance is a statutory mechanism to perfect the flat purchasers' title, not debt recovery or enforcement of a monetary claim. It further held that there is no inconsistency between MOFA and the IBC requiring exclusion under Section 238, and that the moratorium under Section 14 does not prevent the Competent Authority from deciding the application on merits. The refusal was set aside and the matter restored.
Pendency of CIRP against a promoter does not, by itself, bar a society's application for deemed conveyance under MOFA. The Court held that the promoter's duty to convey the land and building arises from statutory and contractual obligations, and that deemed conveyance is a statutory mechanism to perfect the flat purchasers' title, not debt recovery or enforcement of a monetary claim. It further held that there is no inconsistency between MOFA and the IBC requiring exclusion under Section 238, and that the moratorium under Section 14 does not prevent the Competent Authority from deciding the application on merits. The refusal was set aside and the matter restored.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.