Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96177 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
