Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
Page of 4920
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 98394 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the rejection of the Section 9 application, holding that the termination of the contract constituted a pre-existing dispute under Section 8(2) of the IBC. The Corporate Debtor had communicated the existence of a dispute within 10 days of the Demand Notice, specifically citing illegal and unilateral termination. Evidence including communications showed the contracted goods had been produced and that the dispute was bona fide. The Adjudicating Authority correctly applied the test for pre-existing dispute, requiring only the raising of a plausible dispute, not final adjudication. The Tribunal reiterated that IBC proceedings are not for recovery but for insolvency resolution and found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's reliance on established principles to dismiss the application. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.
The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the rejection of the Section 9 application, holding that the termination of the contract constituted a pre-existing dispute under Section 8(2) of the IBC. The Corporate Debtor had communicated the existence of a dispute within 10 days of the Demand Notice, specifically citing illegal and unilateral termination. Evidence including communications showed the contracted goods had been produced and that the dispute was bona fide. The Adjudicating Authority correctly applied the test for pre-existing dispute, requiring only the raising of a plausible dispute, not final adjudication. The Tribunal reiterated that IBC proceedings are not for recovery but for insolvency resolution and found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's reliance on established principles to dismiss the application. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4920 
