Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6361 to 6380 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Operational creditor sought admission of a s.9 application based on invoices, relying on book adjustments and ledger entries to extend limitation and meet the threshold. The tribunal held that any acknowledgement after expiry of the three-year limitation is ineffective, and a journal entry merely transferring historic liabilities between units does not constitute a valid acknowledgement under s.18 nor revive time-barred invoices. A signed balance/ledger confirmation, being ambiguous and lacking an express promise to pay, did not attract s.25(3) of the Contract Act to create a fresh obligation, and interest was disallowed absent contractual terms. Consequently, the operational debt remained time-barred and the threshold finding stood; the appeal was dismissed. - NCLAT
Operational creditor sought admission of a s.9 application based on invoices, relying on book adjustments and ledger entries to extend limitation and meet the threshold. The tribunal held that any acknowledgement after expiry of the three-year limitation is ineffective, and a journal entry merely transferring historic liabilities between units does not constitute a valid acknowledgement under s.18 nor revive time-barred invoices. A signed balance/ledger confirmation, being ambiguous and lacking an express promise to pay, did not attract s.25(3) of the Contract Act to create a fresh obligation, and interest was disallowed absent contractual terms. Consequently, the operational debt remained time-barred and the threshold finding stood; the appeal was dismissed. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
