Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Pre-existing dispute between parties regarding inflated invoices issued by appellant's staff/employees for different project under same Master Service Agreement. Corporate debtor entitled to rights/liabilities under Principal Agreement, so dispute over invoices covered. Appellant commenced investigation, filed police complaint after learning of inflated invoices. Correspondence shows corporate debtor disputed entitlement/payment before demand notice, indicating pre-existing dispute. Adjudicating authority rightly rejected Section 9 application due to pre-existing dispute evident from prior correspondence. No error by adjudicating authority in rejecting application. Appeal dismissed by appellate tribunal as lacking merit.
Pre-existing dispute between parties regarding inflated invoices issued by appellant's staff/employees for different project under same Master Service Agreement. Corporate debtor entitled to rights/liabilities under Principal Agreement, so dispute over invoices covered. Appellant commenced investigation, filed police complaint after learning of inflated invoices. Correspondence shows corporate debtor disputed entitlement/payment before demand notice, indicating pre-existing dispute. Adjudicating authority rightly rejected Section 9 application due to pre-existing dispute evident from prior correspondence. No error by adjudicating authority in rejecting application. Appeal dismissed by appellate tribunal as lacking merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
