Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The Appellate Tribunal examined whether there were sufficient grounds to recall its previous order dated 02.04.2024, wherein liberty was granted by the Supreme Court to file a review limited to the grounds of limitation. The Tribunal held that it possesses inherent jurisdiction to entertain recall applications on cogent grounds, subject to not violating statutory provisions. The Adjudicating Authority had relied on Supreme Court judgments affirming the applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act for Section 7 applications under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), considering the date of default as the starting point. The Appellant's contention that the application should be time-barred under Article 21 was found misconceived and untenable. The Adjudicating Authority correctly held that the application was within the limitation period. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order and dismissed the recall application.
The Appellate Tribunal examined whether there were sufficient grounds to recall its previous order dated 02.04.2024, wherein liberty was granted by the Supreme Court to file a review limited to the grounds of limitation. The Tribunal held that it possesses inherent jurisdiction to entertain recall applications on cogent grounds, subject to not violating statutory provisions. The Adjudicating Authority had relied on Supreme Court judgments affirming the applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act for Section 7 applications under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), considering the date of default as the starting point. The Appellant's contention that the application should be time-barred under Article 21 was found misconceived and untenable. The Adjudicating Authority correctly held that the application was within the limitation period. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order and dismissed the recall application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
