Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
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...
Determining the maintainability of a Section 7 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) based on the date of default and the applicability of limitation periods. The key points are: The correct date of default was 26.02.2001 as per the recall notice, not 01.06.2019 mentioned in the application. The limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to Section 7 applications. The benefit of excluding the limitation period u/s 22(5) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (SICA), 1985, was wrongly denied by the adjudicating authority. However, even after excluding the relevant periods, the Section 7 application filed on 19.12.2019 was beyond the limitation period. The acknowledgment in the 2015-16 balance sheet was after the expiry of the limitation period. Consequently, the adjudicating authority rightly rejected the Section 7 application as time-barred, and the appeal was dismissed.
Determining the maintainability of a Section 7 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) based on the date of default and the applicability of limitation periods. The key points are: The correct date of default was 26.02.2001 as per the recall notice, not 01.06.2019 mentioned in the application. The limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to Section 7 applications. The benefit of excluding the limitation period u/s 22(5) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (SICA), 1985, was wrongly denied by the adjudicating authority. However, even after excluding the relevant periods, the Section 7 application filed on 19.12.2019 was beyond the limitation period. The acknowledgment in the 2015-16 balance sheet was after the expiry of the limitation period. Consequently, the adjudicating authority rightly rejected the Section 7 application as time-barred, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
