Tax deduction compliance and payee income recognition govern consultancy disallowance, while no exempt income prevents related expenditure disallowanc...
Derivative abetment liability fails when correctly declared imported components establish no underlying improper importation by the principal importer...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Page of 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 95752 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, addressed the admissibility of a second petition u/s 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, concerning unpaid instalments and the existence of debt and default. The Corporate Debtor availed a loan from the Financial Creditor but failed to make payments, leading to the first petition being admitted. A settlement was reached, but the Corporate Debtor failed to honor it, resulting in the Financial Creditor filing a second petition for the remaining debt. The Adjudicating Authority rightly admitted the second petition, emphasizing that allowing such tactics by the Corporate Debtor would be detrimental. The Tribunal held that the amount paid during the appeal should be adjusted only if supported by a written agreement; otherwise, the Financial Creditor could adjust it towards interest. The appeal was dismissed, and the deposited amount was ordered to be returned to the Appellant.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, addressed the admissibility of a second petition u/s 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, concerning unpaid instalments and the existence of debt and default. The Corporate Debtor availed a loan from the Financial Creditor but failed to make payments, leading to the first petition being admitted. A settlement was reached, but the Corporate Debtor failed to honor it, resulting in the Financial Creditor filing a second petition for the remaining debt. The Adjudicating Authority rightly admitted the second petition, emphasizing that allowing such tactics by the Corporate Debtor would be detrimental. The Tribunal held that the amount paid during the appeal should be adjusted only if supported by a written agreement; otherwise, the Financial Creditor could adjust it towards interest. The appeal was dismissed, and the deposited amount was ordered to be returned to the Appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
