Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
781 to 800 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Insolvency and BankruptcyFebruary 11, 2022Case LawsHC
Once the application of Part II is taken away for debts more than ₹ 1 Crore, there is no further jurisdiction available under the Statute to the NCLT to act as an Adjudicating Authority under the IBC. It is hence a clear case of total want of jurisdiction - In Ext. P9 order, the Tribunal has held that the notification dated 24.03.2020 is prospective in nature and it is not retrospective or retro-active in nature. It is further stated by the Tribunal that notification will not apply to pending applications before the concerned Adjudicating Authority under the IBC prior to the issuance of the aforesaid notification. - The Tribunal has gone wrong in its interpretation of Section 4 of the Act. Section 4, after amendment on 24.3.2020 clearly says that Part II of the IBC shall apply to matters relating to the insolvency and liquidation of corporate debtors where the minimum amount of default is ₹ 1 Crore. - HC
Once the application of Part II is taken away for debts more than ₹ 1 Crore, there is no further jurisdiction available under the Statute to the NCLT to act as an Adjudicating Authority under the IBC. It is hence a clear case of total want of jurisdiction - In Ext. P9 order, the Tribunal has held that the notification dated 24.03.2020 is prospective in nature and it is not retrospective or retro-active in nature. It is further stated by the Tribunal that notification will not apply to pending applications before the concerned Adjudicating Authority under the IBC prior to the issuance of the aforesaid notification. - The Tribunal has gone wrong in its interpretation of Section 4 of the Act. Section 4, after amendment on 24.3.2020 clearly says that Part II of the IBC shall apply to matters relating to the insolvency and liquidation of corporate debtors where the minimum amount of default is ₹ 1 Crore. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
