Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
