Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the dismissal of an application u/s 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code due to improper service of notice u/s 8. The notice was issued to Key Managerial Personnel (KMP) of the Corporate Debtor (CD) but not to the CD itself at its registered office as mandated by Rule 5(2)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. Issuing notice u/s 8 on Form 3 to the CD at its registered office is a prerequisite for filing an application u/s 9 by the Operational Creditor (OC). The Tribunal distinguished the cited case as it dealt with a different issue regarding the nomenclature of the company. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the dismissal of an application u/s 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code due to improper service of notice u/s 8. The notice was issued to Key Managerial Personnel (KMP) of the Corporate Debtor (CD) but not to the CD itself at its registered office as mandated by Rule 5(2)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. Issuing notice u/s 8 on Form 3 to the CD at its registered office is a prerequisite for filing an application u/s 9 by the Operational Creditor (OC). The Tribunal distinguished the cited case as it dealt with a different issue regarding the nomenclature of the company. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
