Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
NCLAT rejected contempt proceedings against resolution professional (RP) for filing Section 12A withdrawal application. The Tribunal determined that RP's application for CIRP withdrawal, approved by 98% Committee of Creditors (CoC) vote share, did not constitute willful disobedience of prior tribunal order. The RP was statutorily obligated to file withdrawal application, and since CoC did not approve fee payments to former or current RP, no contempt could be established. The tribunal found no merit in the contempt application, emphasizing that statutory compliance cannot be construed as contumacious conduct, thereby dismissing the application and protecting the RP's procedural actions under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
NCLAT rejected contempt proceedings against resolution professional (RP) for filing Section 12A withdrawal application. The Tribunal determined that RP's application for CIRP withdrawal, approved by 98% Committee of Creditors (CoC) vote share, did not constitute willful disobedience of prior tribunal order. The RP was statutorily obligated to file withdrawal application, and since CoC did not approve fee payments to former or current RP, no contempt could be established. The tribunal found no merit in the contempt application, emphasizing that statutory compliance cannot be construed as contumacious conduct, thereby dismissing the application and protecting the RP's procedural actions under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.