Mis-declaration and Concealment: confiscation affirmed, transaction value re-determined and mandatory penalty sustained; redemption allowed on payment...
Infrastructure facility: energy-efficient public lighting held integral to road projects, qualifying the operator as a developer and eligible for dedu...
Fourth Proviso to Section 153A: extended-period inquiry requires a reasonable, material-based satisfaction that escaped income likely exceeds the thre...
The dominant issue was whether the Section 9 IBC application filed on 06.05.2021 was within limitation. Since the claim was founded on the last invoice dated 07.11.2016, the right to apply accrued on 07.11.2016 and limitation was governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, not Article 1 on running accounts; a later invoice raised by the corporate debtor on 29.11.2018 could not shift the date of default, rendering the application time-barred. The tribunal also erred in relying on unilateral invoice terms on interest, which were inconsistent and not shown to be accepted by the corporate debtor. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. - NCLAT
The dominant issue was whether the Section 9 IBC application filed on 06.05.2021 was within limitation. Since the claim was founded on the last invoice dated 07.11.2016, the right to apply accrued on 07.11.2016 and limitation was governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, not Article 1 on running accounts; a later invoice raised by the corporate debtor on 29.11.2018 could not shift the date of default, rendering the application time-barred. The tribunal also erred in relying on unilateral invoice terms on interest, which were inconsistent and not shown to be accepted by the corporate debtor. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
