Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2161 to 2180 of 96140 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 the appeal challenging the rejection of a Section 9 insolvency application. The operational creditor's default dates (03.05.2020, 15.08.2020, and 01.01.2021) fell within the Section 10A prohibited period under IBC. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent in Ramesh Kymal, the tribunal held that defaults occurring during the specified COVID-19 period cannot form the basis for initiating corporate insolvency resolution proceedings. The tribunal emphasized that the creditor bore the responsibility to amend default dates if required, and the adjudicating authority was not obligated to modify dates sua sponte. Consequently, the Section 9 application was deemed non-maintainable, and the appeal was dismissed without merit.
NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging the rejection of a Section 9 insolvency application. The operational creditor's default dates (03.05.2020, 15.08.2020, and 01.01.2021) fell within the Section 10A prohibited period under IBC. Consistent with Supreme Court precedent in Ramesh Kymal, the tribunal held that defaults occurring during the specified COVID-19 period cannot form the basis for initiating corporate insolvency resolution proceedings. The tribunal emphasized that the creditor bore the responsibility to amend default dates if required, and the adjudicating authority was not obligated to modify dates sua sponte. Consequently, the Section 9 application was deemed non-maintainable, and the appeal was dismissed without merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
