Regulatory consolidation for investment advisers: SEBI issues master circular consolidating guidance and prescribing compliance, reporting, fees and s...
Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6121 to 6140 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 42 of the I&B Code was treated as a self-contained limitation provision prescribing the remedy, forum and a fourteen-day period to challenge a liquidator's acceptance or rejection of a claim. The Appellate Tribunal held that Section 238A does not override that special limitation regime or permit extension through Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It further held that pendency of a separate CIRP appeal had no bearing on the Section 42 timeline because the two proceedings operate independently. As the appeal was filed long after receipt of the liquidator's decision, the delay was beyond condonable limits and the plea of ignorance of remedy was rejected.
Section 42 of the I&B Code was treated as a self-contained limitation provision prescribing the remedy, forum and a fourteen-day period to challenge a liquidator's acceptance or rejection of a claim. The Appellate Tribunal held that Section 238A does not override that special limitation regime or permit extension through Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It further held that pendency of a separate CIRP appeal had no bearing on the Section 42 timeline because the two proceedings operate independently. As the appeal was filed long after receipt of the liquidator's decision, the delay was beyond condonable limits and the plea of ignorance of remedy was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
