Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging admission of Section 9 IBC application, affirming the application was within limitation period. Last payment made on 17.02.2017 extended limitation to 17.02.2020, and filing on next working day was permissible under Limitation Act. Tribunal rejected appellant's claim of improper demand notice service and pre-existing dispute. CD's contention of cash payments was unsupported by evidence beyond self-serving ledger entries. The alleged dispute emerged only post-demand notice. Application's maintainability was upheld despite OC being unregistered partnership firm, as Section 69(2) of Partnership Act restrictions don't apply to IBC proceedings. CIRP to continue against CD.
NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging admission of Section 9 IBC application, affirming the application was within limitation period. Last payment made on 17.02.2017 extended limitation to 17.02.2020, and filing on next working day was permissible under Limitation Act. Tribunal rejected appellant's claim of improper demand notice service and pre-existing dispute. CD's contention of cash payments was unsupported by evidence beyond self-serving ledger entries. The alleged dispute emerged only post-demand notice. Application's maintainability was upheld despite OC being unregistered partnership firm, as Section 69(2) of Partnership Act restrictions don't apply to IBC proceedings. CIRP to continue against CD.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
