Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96092 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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
