Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1181 to 1200 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Rejection of section 9 application filed by the Appellant - pre-existing dispute - The NCLAT determined that the email communication constituted a clear dispute regarding the completion of the work and the refund of excess payments. - The tribunal rejected the Appellant's argument that the dispute was baseless or a "moonshine" defense, stating that the allegations made in the email were substantial and warranted consideration. - The NCLAT observed that while the issue of excess input tax taken by the Corporate Debtor could not be addressed under Section 9 of the Code, the Appellant could pursue remedies available under the contract for any dues.
Rejection of section 9 application filed by the Appellant - pre-existing dispute - The NCLAT determined that the email communication constituted a clear dispute regarding the completion of the work and the refund of excess payments. - The tribunal rejected the Appellant's argument that the dispute was baseless or a "moonshine" defense, stating that the allegations made in the email were substantial and warranted consideration. - The NCLAT observed that while the issue of excess input tax taken by the Corporate Debtor could not be addressed under Section 9 of the Code, the Appellant could pursue remedies available under the contract for any dues.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
