Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
NCLAT allowed an appeal and set aside the ex parte orders dated 06.12.2024 and 09.12.2024 that had admitted a Section 95 IBC application and initiated CIRP proceedings against two personal guarantors (spouses). The Tribunal found procedural unfairness and violation of principles of natural justice because the guarantors had not filed a reply to the RP's report and were not shown to have deliberately absented or unduly delayed proceedings. NCLAT held that requiring oral submissions on merits at that stage was unwarranted, recalled the impugned orders, and disposed of the appeal, thereby restoring procedural equity and directing further adjudication consistent with fair hearing.
NCLAT allowed an appeal and set aside the ex parte orders dated 06.12.2024 and 09.12.2024 that had admitted a Section 95 IBC application and initiated CIRP proceedings against two personal guarantors (spouses). The Tribunal found procedural unfairness and violation of principles of natural justice because the guarantors had not filed a reply to the RP's report and were not shown to have deliberately absented or unduly delayed proceedings. NCLAT held that requiring oral submissions on merits at that stage was unwarranted, recalled the impugned orders, and disposed of the appeal, thereby restoring procedural equity and directing further adjudication consistent with fair hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
