Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
A corporate debtor remains a separate juristic person even where it forms part of a group, and Regulation 29 of the Liquidation Process Regulations permits set-off only for mutual dealings between the corporate debtor and the same counterparty. The Tribunal rejected cross-entity aggregation of claims through the Group of Companies Doctrine, noting that each BISCON entity had undergone separate CIRP or liquidation and had separate billing and deposits. The appellant had also filed separate claims and disclosed no mutual set-off in the present proceeding. The liquidator was therefore entitled to recover the refundable balance as part of the liquidation estate, and the appeal was dismissed.
A corporate debtor remains a separate juristic person even where it forms part of a group, and Regulation 29 of the Liquidation Process Regulations permits set-off only for mutual dealings between the corporate debtor and the same counterparty. The Tribunal rejected cross-entity aggregation of claims through the Group of Companies Doctrine, noting that each BISCON entity had undergone separate CIRP or liquidation and had separate billing and deposits. The appellant had also filed separate claims and disclosed no mutual set-off in the present proceeding. The liquidator was therefore entitled to recover the refundable balance as part of the liquidation estate, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
