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...
The appeal challenged the admittance of a Section 95 application filed by the Financial Creditor, contending it was time-barred. The key issue was whether a letter dated 12.06.2017 from the Appellant to the Financial Creditor constituted an acknowledgement u/s 18 of the Limitation Act, extending the limitation period by three years from 12.06.2017. The NCLAT held that the letter clearly acknowledged the debt, and as per Supreme Court precedents, an acknowledgement by a borrower or guarantor extends the limitation period u/s 18. Considering the exclusion of time from 15.03.2020 to 25.03.2021 due to the Supreme Court's order, the application filed on 30.09.2021 was within the extended limitation period. Consequently, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order holding the application as timely.
The appeal challenged the admittance of a Section 95 application filed by the Financial Creditor, contending it was time-barred. The key issue was whether a letter dated 12.06.2017 from the Appellant to the Financial Creditor constituted an acknowledgement u/s 18 of the Limitation Act, extending the limitation period by three years from 12.06.2017. The NCLAT held that the letter clearly acknowledged the debt, and as per Supreme Court precedents, an acknowledgement by a borrower or guarantor extends the limitation period u/s 18. Considering the exclusion of time from 15.03.2020 to 25.03.2021 due to the Supreme Court's order, the application filed on 30.09.2021 was within the extended limitation period. Consequently, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order holding the application as timely.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
