Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, addressed the admissibility of a section 9 application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in the presence of pre-existing disputes between the parties. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Mobilox Innovations Pvt Ltd Vs Kirusa Software Pvt Ltd, it was emphasized that a pre-existing dispute must be more than a feeble legal argument or unsupported assertion. The Tribunal noted that the existence of claims or counterclaims, even without a reply to a demand notice, could establish a pre-existing dispute warranting rejection of a Section 9 petition. In this case, the Corporate Debtor had already initiated arbitration proceedings prior to the Section 9 petition, indicating a pre-existing dispute that could not be resolved summarily. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the dismissal of the Section 9 petition.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, addressed the admissibility of a section 9 application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in the presence of pre-existing disputes between the parties. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Mobilox Innovations Pvt Ltd Vs Kirusa Software Pvt Ltd, it was emphasized that a pre-existing dispute must be more than a feeble legal argument or unsupported assertion. The Tribunal noted that the existence of claims or counterclaims, even without a reply to a demand notice, could establish a pre-existing dispute warranting rejection of a Section 9 petition. In this case, the Corporate Debtor had already initiated arbitration proceedings prior to the Section 9 petition, indicating a pre-existing dispute that could not be resolved summarily. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the dismissal of the Section 9 petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
