Post-search scrutiny assessment remains available where original assessment limitation is unexpired, permitting timely completion under regular assess...
Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Page of 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
121 to 140 of 95752 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 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
