Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
