Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Insolvency and BankruptcyJanuary 14, 2023Case LawsAT
Demand of lease amount during moratorium period - whether the Adjudicating Authority has rightly applied the explanation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Code for the purpose of directing the Appellant to pay the lease premium amount and the lease rent to the Respondent (NOIDA)? - The impugned order is patently illegal and deserves to be set aside - AT
Demand of lease amount during moratorium period - whether the Adjudicating Authority has rightly applied the explanation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Code for the purpose of directing the Appellant to pay the lease premium amount and the lease rent to the Respondent (NOIDA)? - The impugned order is patently illegal and deserves to be set aside - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
