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 ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Employee conflict disclosures and investment restrictions expand with new recusal duties, post-employment limits, and compliance reporting requirement...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
