International transaction characterisation of domestic divestment of support services business rejected; transaction between resident associated enter...
Minimum Import Price restrictions for Black Pepper, Areca-nuts and Apples upheld; procedural laying failure not fatal, notifications to be placed befo...
Transaction value between related persons requires market-equivalent pricing; importer must prove declared value mirrors ordinary international trade ...
Classification of exported insecticides under export tariff affirmed; reclassification and related penalties set aside and MEIS scrip jurisdiction rec...
Misclassification between copra and dry coconut: customs recovery and re-valuation quashed for lack of prior licensing-authority invalidation, appeals...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6921 to 6940 of 96332 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The dominant issue was whether an operational creditor's Section 9 application was barred by Section 10A because the defaults pertained to invoices allegedly falling within the excluded period. The tribunal held that the dates of default for two invoices relating to one project arose beyond the Section 10A prohibited period; hence, dismissal solely on Section 10A was legally untenable. As the debt under these two invoices exceeded the Section 4 threshold of Rs 1 crore, the adjudicating authority was required to consider them on merits. The impugned dismissal was set aside, the Section 9 application was restored, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration limited to those invoices - NCLAT
The dominant issue was whether an operational creditor's Section 9 application was barred by Section 10A because the defaults pertained to invoices allegedly falling within the excluded period. The tribunal held that the dates of default for two invoices relating to one project arose beyond the Section 10A prohibited period; hence, dismissal solely on Section 10A was legally untenable. As the debt under these two invoices exceeded the Section 4 threshold of Rs 1 crore, the adjudicating authority was required to consider them on merits. The impugned dismissal was set aside, the Section 9 application was restored, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration limited to those invoices - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.