Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 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 filed by the alleged creditor, holding that he failed to establish any valid, verifiable financial disbursement to qualify as a financial creditor under Section 5(8)(f) IBC. The claimed payments by cheque and cash were unsupported by bank records, receipts, or other documentary evidence, and the burden of proof lay on the appellant. The RP had lawfully rejected the claim, and the mention of "0% claim admitted" did not amount to its admission. NCLAT further noted indicia of collusion with the erstwhile management and unauthorized occupation of a flat without consideration. As the resolution plan had been approved by NCLT and the statutory period under Section 61(2) IBC had expired, the appellant's belated attempt to reopen or revive his claim was held impermissible. The impugned order was affirmed and the appeal was rejected.
NCLAT dismissed the appeal filed by the alleged creditor, holding that he failed to establish any valid, verifiable financial disbursement to qualify as a financial creditor under Section 5(8)(f) IBC. The claimed payments by cheque and cash were unsupported by bank records, receipts, or other documentary evidence, and the burden of proof lay on the appellant. The RP had lawfully rejected the claim, and the mention of "0% claim admitted" did not amount to its admission. NCLAT further noted indicia of collusion with the erstwhile management and unauthorized occupation of a flat without consideration. As the resolution plan had been approved by NCLT and the statutory period under Section 61(2) IBC had expired, the appellant's belated attempt to reopen or revive his claim was held impermissible. The impugned order was affirmed and the appeal was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
