Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Determination of the limitation period for filing an appeal u/s 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the scope of an "Aggrieved Person," and the principle of Estoppel by Conduct. The key points are: The appellant cannot claim the benefit of the extended limitation period due to COVID-19, as the mandatory 30-day period for applying for a certified copy of the impugned order had expired much before the extended period commenced on 15.03.2020. The appellant's failure to comply with the statutory requirement of procuring a certified copy within the prescribed time, despite having knowledge of the proceedings, creates a legal bar u/s 114 of the Evidence Act. The appellant's inaction to apply for a certified copy, despite having knowledge, would constitute an "Estoppel by Conduct." Consequently, the application for condonation of delay lacks merit and is dismissed.
Determination of the limitation period for filing an appeal u/s 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the scope of an "Aggrieved Person," and the principle of Estoppel by Conduct. The key points are: The appellant cannot claim the benefit of the extended limitation period due to COVID-19, as the mandatory 30-day period for applying for a certified copy of the impugned order had expired much before the extended period commenced on 15.03.2020. The appellant's failure to comply with the statutory requirement of procuring a certified copy within the prescribed time, despite having knowledge of the proceedings, creates a legal bar u/s 114 of the Evidence Act. The appellant's inaction to apply for a certified copy, despite having knowledge, would constitute an "Estoppel by Conduct." Consequently, the application for condonation of delay lacks merit and is dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
