Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3301 to 3320 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involved a dispute regarding the adjustment of an income tax refund with outstanding liability after the CIRP timeline had expired and a liquidation order was passed. The Appellate Tribunal held that the moratorium u/s 14 of IBC continues even after the CIRP period ends, and creditors cannot exercise set-off during this period. The Respondent was found liable to refund the amount set off against tax dues as it violated the moratorium. The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to refund the adjusted amount to the Corporate Debtor within two weeks. The judgment emphasized that set-off during CIRP is against IBC principles.
The case involved a dispute regarding the adjustment of an income tax refund with outstanding liability after the CIRP timeline had expired and a liquidation order was passed. The Appellate Tribunal held that the moratorium u/s 14 of IBC continues even after the CIRP period ends, and creditors cannot exercise set-off during this period. The Respondent was found liable to refund the amount set off against tax dues as it violated the moratorium. The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to refund the adjusted amount to the Corporate Debtor within two weeks. The judgment emphasized that set-off during CIRP is against IBC principles.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
