Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
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...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 95955 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The NCLAT upheld that the transaction involving Aryan Spaces constituted a preferential transaction under Section 49 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, subject to further investigation by the Resolution Professional. The Tribunal had previously considered the reply filed by the Appellant despite inadvertently recording that no reply was filed. The Tribunal clarified this error in its subsequent order dated 17.08.2023, noting that the Appellant's arguments regarding the MOU dated 15.11.2018 had been duly considered. The appeal was dismissed on grounds of limitation as the Appellant failed to file within the statutory period, and the application for condonation of delay was not pursued by the Appellant who was absent during the hearing.
The NCLAT upheld that the transaction involving Aryan Spaces constituted a preferential transaction under Section 49 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, subject to further investigation by the Resolution Professional. The Tribunal had previously considered the reply filed by the Appellant despite inadvertently recording that no reply was filed. The Tribunal clarified this error in its subsequent order dated 17.08.2023, noting that the Appellant's arguments regarding the MOU dated 15.11.2018 had been duly considered. The appeal was dismissed on grounds of limitation as the Appellant failed to file within the statutory period, and the application for condonation of delay was not pursued by the Appellant who was absent during the hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
