Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
