Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
941 to 960 of 96001 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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
