Tax deduction compliance and payee income recognition govern consultancy disallowance, while no exempt income prevents related expenditure disallowanc...
Derivative abetment liability fails when correctly declared imported components establish no underlying improper importation by the principal importer...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 96100 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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
