Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The Adjudicating Authority erred by dismissing the Section 95 application without appointing a Resolution Professional and following the statutory process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The principle of waiver is inapplicable as the Appellant did not consciously abandon any existing legal right. The Adjudicating Authority lacks jurisdiction to consider objections on the merits of the Section 95 application before appointing a Resolution Professional, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Dilip B. Jiwrajka's case. The order dismissing the Section 95 application is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
The Adjudicating Authority erred by dismissing the Section 95 application without appointing a Resolution Professional and following the statutory process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The principle of waiver is inapplicable as the Appellant did not consciously abandon any existing legal right. The Adjudicating Authority lacks jurisdiction to consider objections on the merits of the Section 95 application before appointing a Resolution Professional, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Dilip B. Jiwrajka's case. The order dismissing the Section 95 application is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
