Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Rejection of an application filed u/s 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) by the Appellant, where the State Bank of India (SBI) had initiated proceedings u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act prior to the filing. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Section 10 application, citing the Appellant's malicious and fraudulent intent to delay and halt SBI's recovery proceedings. However, the NCLAT held that merely filing a Section 10 application subsequent to Section 13(2) proceedings cannot be grounds for inferring fraudulent intent. The Tribunal relied on its previous judgment in Unigreen Global Private Limited vs. Punjab National Bank, which stated that pending SARFAESI or DRT proceedings cannot be grounds for rejecting a complete Section 10 application. The NCLAT ruled that the Adjudicating Authority erred in allowing SBI's Section 65 application and rejecting the Section 10 application solely based on the timing of the filings. The Tribunal revived the Section 10 application for fresh consideration by the Adjudicating Authority.
Rejection of an application filed u/s 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) by the Appellant, where the State Bank of India (SBI) had initiated proceedings u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act prior to the filing. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Section 10 application, citing the Appellant's malicious and fraudulent intent to delay and halt SBI's recovery proceedings. However, the NCLAT held that merely filing a Section 10 application subsequent to Section 13(2) proceedings cannot be grounds for inferring fraudulent intent. The Tribunal relied on its previous judgment in Unigreen Global Private Limited vs. Punjab National Bank, which stated that pending SARFAESI or DRT proceedings cannot be grounds for rejecting a complete Section 10 application. The NCLAT ruled that the Adjudicating Authority erred in allowing SBI's Section 65 application and rejecting the Section 10 application solely based on the timing of the filings. The Tribunal revived the Section 10 application for fresh consideration by the Adjudicating Authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
