Charity-run tree plantation and maintenance for environmental preservation qualifies as "charitable activity", making supplies GST-exempt under Notifi...
Drawings/designs supply and erection supervision fees from German contractor: designs non-taxable; supervision taxed as FTS/PE depending on six-month ...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7621 to 7640 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A writ petition challenging a statutory corporation's demand for...
Transfer fee demand on leasehold land transfer by statutory corporation challenged; petition dismissed for fact suppression and inapplicable IBC Section 31.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
A writ petition challenging a statutory corporation's demand for transfer fee on leasehold land was held non-maintainable because the petitioner invoked Article 226 by wilful suppression and misrepresentation of material facts, including selectively quoting the insolvency appellate order to portray recorded submissions as judicial observations; on this ground alone, discretionary relief was denied and the petition failed. On merits, the court found the transaction involved transfer of leasehold interest (not merely a change in shareholding), making precedents inapplicable, and rejected the "clean slate" plea under Section 31 IBC because the approved resolution plan did not extinguish the transfer-fee claim and the insolvency fora had expressly left it open to be pursued before the competent authority; the challenge was dismissed. - HC
A writ petition challenging a statutory corporation's demand for transfer fee on leasehold land was held non-maintainable because the petitioner invoked Article 226 by wilful suppression and misrepresentation of material facts, including selectively quoting the insolvency appellate order to portray recorded submissions as judicial observations; on this ground alone, discretionary relief was denied and the petition failed. On merits, the court found the transaction involved transfer of leasehold interest (not merely a change in shareholding), making precedents inapplicable, and rejected the "clean slate" plea under Section 31 IBC because the approved resolution plan did not extinguish the transfer-fee claim and the insolvency fora had expressly left it open to be pursued before the competent authority; the challenge was dismissed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.