Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96177 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 BankruptcyApril 16, 2024Case LawsSCH
Admissibility of section 9 application - The Appellant argued that the application under the IBC should not have been admitted due to the pendency of a civil suit. However, the Supreme Court held that the existence of a pending civil suit does not preclude the admission of an application under the IBC if there is a genuine dispute regarding the debt. They cited the principle established in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited Vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited [2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT], emphasizing that the adjudicating authority is only required to determine whether there is a plausible contention for further investigation. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the lower tribunals to admit the application under the IBC and initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor.
Admissibility of section 9 application - The Appellant argued that the application under the IBC should not have been admitted due to the pendency of a civil suit. However, the Supreme Court held that the existence of a pending civil suit does not preclude the admission of an application under the IBC if there is a genuine dispute regarding the debt. They cited the principle established in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited Vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited [2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT], emphasizing that the adjudicating authority is only required to determine whether there is a plausible contention for further investigation. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the lower tribunals to admit the application under the IBC and initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
