Judicial discipline requires consistent reassessment treatment where identical facts were decided for the same taxpayer in the preceding assessment ye...
Agreement-date stamp valuation requires the same registered property, fixed consideration, and qualifying payment; an unrelated prior booking cannot a...
Page of 4894
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 97867 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Maintainability of an application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) u/s 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The key points are: The claim for performance pay, being subject to subjective assessment criteria, does not constitute an "operational debt" or a "debt" under the IBC. The Appellant issued both Form 3 and Form 4 notices u/s 8 of the IBC, indicating uncertainty about the nature of the claim. The issuance of multiple notices u/s 8 does not make the claim payable as an operational debt. The claim raised by the Operational Creditor does not qualify as an operational debt, and hence, the initiation of CIRP u/s 9 against the Corporate Debtor is not justified. The Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the claim through the impugned order is valid and does not warrant interference by the Appellate Tribunal u/s 61 of the IBC. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
Maintainability of an application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) u/s 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The key points are: The claim for performance pay, being subject to subjective assessment criteria, does not constitute an "operational debt" or a "debt" under the IBC. The Appellant issued both Form 3 and Form 4 notices u/s 8 of the IBC, indicating uncertainty about the nature of the claim. The issuance of multiple notices u/s 8 does not make the claim payable as an operational debt. The claim raised by the Operational Creditor does not qualify as an operational debt, and hence, the initiation of CIRP u/s 9 against the Corporate Debtor is not justified. The Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the claim through the impugned order is valid and does not warrant interference by the Appellate Tribunal u/s 61 of the IBC. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4894 
