Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) on bank interest remanded for AO's verification, including classification of compulsory investments and relat...
A Section 7 application was rejected as time-barred, raising issues whether the claimant was a financial creditor and whether the claim was within limitation. The underlying contract treated the trade advance as converting into a debt carrying time value of money upon default, satisfying the statutory elements of "financial debt"; consequently, the claimant was correctly classified as a financial creditor. On limitation, the exclusion/extension period directed in the SC suo motu proceedings required adding the balance limitation from 15.03.2020 to 01.03.2022, rendering the filing within time; therefore, the rejection on limitation was unsustainable and the appeal was allowed. - NCLAT
A Section 7 application was rejected as time-barred, raising issues whether the claimant was a financial creditor and whether the claim was within limitation. The underlying contract treated the trade advance as converting into a debt carrying time value of money upon default, satisfying the statutory elements of "financial debt"; consequently, the claimant was correctly classified as a financial creditor. On limitation, the exclusion/extension period directed in the SC suo motu proceedings required adding the balance limitation from 15.03.2020 to 01.03.2022, rendering the filing within time; therefore, the rejection on limitation was unsustainable and the appeal was allowed. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
