Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Corporate debtor filed a reply to the financial creditor's Section 7 application in December 2023, but moved an application u/s 8 for reference to arbitration only on March 7, 2024. The financial creditor had initiated arbitration proceedings by unilaterally appointing an arbitrator in July 2019, but the arbitrator terminated the proceedings in October 2021, holding the appointment contrary to law. The NCLAT held that if an application u/s 8 is filed, the adjudicating authority must first decide the Section 7 application by recording satisfaction regarding default. The pendency or initiation of arbitration proceedings after filing the Section 7 application is immaterial. Allowing the Section 8 application would defeat the IBC's purpose by asking the adjudicating authority to await arbitration proceedings. The corporate debtor admitted debt and default in one-time settlement offers in 2019 and 2022. The adjudicating authority rightly rejected the Section 8 application, and the NCLAT dismissed the appeal.
Corporate debtor filed a reply to the financial creditor's Section 7 application in December 2023, but moved an application u/s 8 for reference to arbitration only on March 7, 2024. The financial creditor had initiated arbitration proceedings by unilaterally appointing an arbitrator in July 2019, but the arbitrator terminated the proceedings in October 2021, holding the appointment contrary to law. The NCLAT held that if an application u/s 8 is filed, the adjudicating authority must first decide the Section 7 application by recording satisfaction regarding default. The pendency or initiation of arbitration proceedings after filing the Section 7 application is immaterial. Allowing the Section 8 application would defeat the IBC's purpose by asking the adjudicating authority to await arbitration proceedings. The corporate debtor admitted debt and default in one-time settlement offers in 2019 and 2022. The adjudicating authority rightly rejected the Section 8 application, and the NCLAT dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
