Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Withdrawal of CIRP under Section 12A before constitution of the CoC may be considered through the IRP, with the adjudicating authority examining statutory requirements, settlement terms and CIRP costs, and may also exercise inherent powers under Rule 11. An unadmitted claimant has no crystallised right to participate in or object to the withdrawal merely because a claim has been filed. Applying the Supreme Court's guidance in Glas Trust Company LLC v. BYJU Raveendran, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the withdrawal order as within jurisdiction and in accordance with Section 12A read with Regulation 30A, while leaving the claimant free to pursue other remedies in law.
Withdrawal of CIRP under Section 12A before constitution of the CoC may be considered through the IRP, with the adjudicating authority examining statutory requirements, settlement terms and CIRP costs, and may also exercise inherent powers under Rule 11. An unadmitted claimant has no crystallised right to participate in or object to the withdrawal merely because a claim has been filed. Applying the Supreme Court's guidance in Glas Trust Company LLC v. BYJU Raveendran, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the withdrawal order as within jurisdiction and in accordance with Section 12A read with Regulation 30A, while leaving the claimant free to pursue other remedies in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
