Anti-profiteering obligations survive business demerger, complaint withdrawal, and customized supply arrangements where rate-reduction benefits are no...
Road restoration charges constitute taxable services when requested for commercial pipeline activity, requiring reverse-charge GST from the business r...
Interest on delayed release of requisitioned cash includes statutory pre-assessment interest and restitutionary compensation for unlawful post-assessm...
Incomplete inventory records justify rejecting accounts, while profit estimation requires relevant comparable material and interest falls under other ...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires functional alignment; delayed associated-enterprise receivables need separate LIBOR-based benchmarking, while ...
Insolvency and BankruptcyMarch 13, 2024Case LawsHC
Constitutional validity - Disciplinary proceedings against insolvency professional agencies - suspension of authorization for assignment - Regulation 23A is liable to be struck down or not - violation of principles of natural justice - Section 204 of IBC is violative of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India or not - The court dismissed the petitioner's contentions regarding the arbitrary nature of Regulation 23A, its conferral of excessive power on IPAs, and its violation of natural justice principles. - The court upheld the validity of Section 204 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, rejecting the petitioner's argument. The petitioner is virtually assailing correctness of the findings before the self same Court and pleading for re-consideration of the issue, which is nothing but an appeal in disguise, which cannot be entertained by this Court.
Constitutional validity - Disciplinary proceedings against insolvency professional agencies - suspension of authorization for assignment - Regulation 23A is liable to be struck down or not - violation of principles of natural justice - Section 204 of IBC is violative of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India or not - The court dismissed the petitioner's contentions regarding the arbitrary nature of Regulation 23A, its conferral of excessive power on IPAs, and its violation of natural justice principles. - The court upheld the validity of Section 204 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, rejecting the petitioner's argument. The petitioner is virtually assailing correctness of the findings before the self same Court and pleading for re-consideration of the issue, which is nothing but an appeal in disguise, which cannot be entertained by this Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
