Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Insolvency and BankruptcyAugust 16, 2024Case LawsAT
Permission to withdraw application filed u/s 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was denied, and the Appellant challenged the order contending error in not granting liberty to file a fresh application. It was held that in IBC proceedings, the Applicant is not entitled to withdraw the application filed u/s 9 at any stage and pray for liberty to file afresh as a matter of right. The Adjudicating Authority had permitted withdrawal but denied liberty to file fresh application, as an objection was raised by the Corporate Debtor alleging false evidence pertaining to Demand Notice. The Appellate Tribunal found no error committed by the Adjudicating Authority in denying liberty to file fresh application, although imposition of cost was unnecessary. The appeal was dismissed.
Permission to withdraw application filed u/s 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was denied, and the Appellant challenged the order contending error in not granting liberty to file a fresh application. It was held that in IBC proceedings, the Applicant is not entitled to withdraw the application filed u/s 9 at any stage and pray for liberty to file afresh as a matter of right. The Adjudicating Authority had permitted withdrawal but denied liberty to file fresh application, as an objection was raised by the Corporate Debtor alleging false evidence pertaining to Demand Notice. The Appellate Tribunal found no error committed by the Adjudicating Authority in denying liberty to file fresh application, although imposition of cost was unnecessary. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
