Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
This case deals with the extinguishment of demands due to the non-filing of claims by the revenue during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The key points are: 1) Ruchi Soya underwent CIRP, and Patanjali continued its business after the resolution plan was approved. 2) The revenue did not file any claim before the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) during CIRP. 3) As the demand was not part of the resolution plan, it stood extinguished and cannot be continued per Section 31 and 32A of the IBC. 4) The Gujarat High Court held that if the revenue does not lodge a claim as an Operational Creditor before the Resolution Professional, any liability extinguishes upon the implementation of the Resolution Plan. 5) The resolution plan aims to continue the company's business as a going concern under the IBC's scheme. 6) Rule 22 of the 1982 Rules, which deals with abatement, is not applicable when a resolution plan is approved under the IBC. 7) The substantial question of law was answered in favor of the assessee against the revenue.
This case deals with the extinguishment of demands due to the non-filing of claims by the revenue during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The key points are: 1) Ruchi Soya underwent CIRP, and Patanjali continued its business after the resolution plan was approved. 2) The revenue did not file any claim before the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) during CIRP. 3) As the demand was not part of the resolution plan, it stood extinguished and cannot be continued per Section 31 and 32A of the IBC. 4) The Gujarat High Court held that if the revenue does not lodge a claim as an Operational Creditor before the Resolution Professional, any liability extinguishes upon the implementation of the Resolution Plan. 5) The resolution plan aims to continue the company's business as a going concern under the IBC's scheme. 6) Rule 22 of the 1982 Rules, which deals with abatement, is not applicable when a resolution plan is approved under the IBC. 7) The substantial question of law was answered in favor of the assessee against the revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
