Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Insolvency and BankruptcyAugust 5, 2024Case LawsAT
The Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected the petition filed u/s 9 of the Code due to a pre-existing dispute between the parties. The Corporate Debtor raised a plausible contention about forgery allegations and a pre-existing dispute, which is not a feeble legal argument. The Appellant did not complete the project as per the contractual terms, and there were claims and counterclaims leading to a dispute. The issue of limitation was also raised, as the statutory demand notice was issued beyond the prescribed period from the date of the last invoice. The Impugned Order dismissing the petition u/s 9 was upheld, and the Appeal was dismissed, as there existed a pre-existing dispute between the parties, which is not a moonshine.
The Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected the petition filed u/s 9 of the Code due to a pre-existing dispute between the parties. The Corporate Debtor raised a plausible contention about forgery allegations and a pre-existing dispute, which is not a feeble legal argument. The Appellant did not complete the project as per the contractual terms, and there were claims and counterclaims leading to a dispute. The issue of limitation was also raised, as the statutory demand notice was issued beyond the prescribed period from the date of the last invoice. The Impugned Order dismissing the petition u/s 9 was upheld, and the Appeal was dismissed, as there existed a pre-existing dispute between the parties, which is not a moonshine.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
