Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
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...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The summary focuses on the dismissal of an appeal challenging the rejection of an insolvency application u/s 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The key points are: 1) The appellant claimed interest on license fees, which was disallowed as interest was not agreed upon in the agreement. 2) A portion of the claimed default fell within the prohibited period u/s 10A of the IBC, which the corporate debtor was entitled to exclude. 3) The appellant argued continuous default before, during, and after the prohibited period, but the tribunal found it to be an artificial creation by inflating claims and omitting revised license fees. 4) After recalculating the actual unpaid amount by excluding the portion protected u/s 10A and improperly calculated interest, the outstanding default was below the Rs 1 crore threshold required u/s 4 of the IBC. 5) The appellate tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's correct interpretation and application of Section 10A, concluding that the outstanding default did not meet the threshold, and dismissed the appeal.
The summary focuses on the dismissal of an appeal challenging the rejection of an insolvency application u/s 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The key points are: 1) The appellant claimed interest on license fees, which was disallowed as interest was not agreed upon in the agreement. 2) A portion of the claimed default fell within the prohibited period u/s 10A of the IBC, which the corporate debtor was entitled to exclude. 3) The appellant argued continuous default before, during, and after the prohibited period, but the tribunal found it to be an artificial creation by inflating claims and omitting revised license fees. 4) After recalculating the actual unpaid amount by excluding the portion protected u/s 10A and improperly calculated interest, the outstanding default was below the Rs 1 crore threshold required u/s 4 of the IBC. 5) The appellate tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's correct interpretation and application of Section 10A, concluding that the outstanding default did not meet the threshold, and dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
