Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside Section 9 proceedings under IBC against the Corporate Debtor. The tribunal found a pre-existing dispute between parties involving complex transactions and intermingled disputes between Promoters of both entities. Though transactions occurred in a running account for supply of goods, additional disputes regarding premises rental arrangements were evident. Following Mobilox Innovations precedent, NCLAT held that disputes were not patently feeble but required proper adjudication. While limitation period was not an issue due to recent part-payment extending it by 3 years, the tribunal concluded Section 9 petition was not maintainable due to genuine pre-existing disputes requiring examination beyond corporate veil.
NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside Section 9 proceedings under IBC against the Corporate Debtor. The tribunal found a pre-existing dispute between parties involving complex transactions and intermingled disputes between Promoters of both entities. Though transactions occurred in a running account for supply of goods, additional disputes regarding premises rental arrangements were evident. Following Mobilox Innovations precedent, NCLAT held that disputes were not patently feeble but required proper adjudication. While limitation period was not an issue due to recent part-payment extending it by 3 years, the tribunal concluded Section 9 petition was not maintainable due to genuine pre-existing disputes requiring examination beyond corporate veil.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.