Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Adjudicating Authority rightly dismissed the Company Petition filed u/s 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) on the ground of pre-existing disputes between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor. The Respondent provided documentary evidence, including communications and police complaints, demonstrating ongoing disputes related to possession of leased premises and payment obligations under the lease agreement. The existence of a pre-existing dispute, regardless of merit, disqualifies an Operational Creditor from initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) u/s 9 of the IBC. The Appellant failed to demonstrate that the Adjudicating Authority erred in dismissing the Section 9 Petition. The Appeal was dismissed, with the Appellate Tribunal noting that the claim may also fail on grounds of not meeting the threshold of Rs. 1 crore u/s 4 of the IBC, discrepancies in claimed amounts, and allegations of fabrication of invoices.
The Adjudicating Authority rightly dismissed the Company Petition filed u/s 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) on the ground of pre-existing disputes between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor. The Respondent provided documentary evidence, including communications and police complaints, demonstrating ongoing disputes related to possession of leased premises and payment obligations under the lease agreement. The existence of a pre-existing dispute, regardless of merit, disqualifies an Operational Creditor from initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) u/s 9 of the IBC. The Appellant failed to demonstrate that the Adjudicating Authority erred in dismissing the Section 9 Petition. The Appeal was dismissed, with the Appellate Tribunal noting that the claim may also fail on grounds of not meeting the threshold of Rs. 1 crore u/s 4 of the IBC, discrepancies in claimed amounts, and allegations of fabrication of invoices.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
