Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appellant, a decree holder, qualifies as a "Financial Creditor" under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The settlement agreement recognized the appellant's financial claim, and the decree formalized the respondent's obligation to pay, not altering the underlying financial debt's character. The petition filed by the appellant u/s 7 of the IBC is within the limitation period. The respondent's acknowledgments of debt before the High Court extended the limitation period u/s 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The NCLT order dismissing the petition on the ground of limitation is erroneous and liable to be set aside. The appeal is allowed.
The appellant, a decree holder, qualifies as a "Financial Creditor" under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The settlement agreement recognized the appellant's financial claim, and the decree formalized the respondent's obligation to pay, not altering the underlying financial debt's character. The petition filed by the appellant u/s 7 of the IBC is within the limitation period. The respondent's acknowledgments of debt before the High Court extended the limitation period u/s 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The NCLT order dismissing the petition on the ground of limitation is erroneous and liable to be set aside. The appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
