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...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of refund and adjustment of security amount in a claim. It examined Clause 8 of the Claim Form and found that the security amount was already adjusted in the claim itself. The Adjudicating Authority had relied on a Supreme Court judgment concerning the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), which permitted set-off of accounts under Regulation 29. However, the Appellate Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority erred in observing that the anticipated claim adjustment by the Appellant could not be permitted, as the present case involved an actual claim filed with adjustment of the security claim. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal ruled that the Adjudicating Authority's direction to pay Rs. 1,15,33,600/- could not be sustained, and the Appeal was partly allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of refund and adjustment of security amount in a claim. It examined Clause 8 of the Claim Form and found that the security amount was already adjusted in the claim itself. The Adjudicating Authority had relied on a Supreme Court judgment concerning the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), which permitted set-off of accounts under Regulation 29. However, the Appellate Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority erred in observing that the anticipated claim adjustment by the Appellant could not be permitted, as the present case involved an actual claim filed with adjustment of the security claim. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal ruled that the Adjudicating Authority's direction to pay Rs. 1,15,33,600/- could not be sustained, and the Appeal was partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
