Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The appellant challenged the dismissal of its application filed u/s 7 of the Code by the Adjudicating Authority. The key issues were: existence of debt and default, applicability of Vidarbha Industries ratio, judicious application of mind by the Adjudicating Authority, acknowledgment of debt and default by the respondent, and the appellant's right to raise disputed issues through a rejoinder. The NCLAT held that there was outstanding debt and clear default by the respondent, entitling the appellant to file u/s 7. The Adjudicating Authority failed to apply the Vidarbha Industries ratio correctly and ignored the respondent's acknowledgments of debt and default. The appellant was permitted to raise issues through the rejoinder. The NCLAT ruled that the appellant was not duty-bound to assign its debts to EARC. The case was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh hearing, considering all relevant facts. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.
The appellant challenged the dismissal of its application filed u/s 7 of the Code by the Adjudicating Authority. The key issues were: existence of debt and default, applicability of Vidarbha Industries ratio, judicious application of mind by the Adjudicating Authority, acknowledgment of debt and default by the respondent, and the appellant's right to raise disputed issues through a rejoinder. The NCLAT held that there was outstanding debt and clear default by the respondent, entitling the appellant to file u/s 7. The Adjudicating Authority failed to apply the Vidarbha Industries ratio correctly and ignored the respondent's acknowledgments of debt and default. The appellant was permitted to raise issues through the rejoinder. The NCLAT ruled that the appellant was not duty-bound to assign its debts to EARC. The case was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh hearing, considering all relevant facts. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
