Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
