Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Section 10A exclusion under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must be computed with the correct contractual credit period, and invoices cannot be mechanically placed in the excluded period without reference to the supply terms. The tribunal found that goods from the Indian warehouse carried a 40-day credit period, so the remaining operational debt still crossed the Section 9 threshold. It also held that a later tripartite arrangement, executed after default, did not establish any pre-existing dispute, and that a mismatch between the demand notice and the insolvency claim was explained by post-notice part-payments and contractual interest. The rejection of the Section 9 application was set aside.
Section 10A exclusion under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must be computed with the correct contractual credit period, and invoices cannot be mechanically placed in the excluded period without reference to the supply terms. The tribunal found that goods from the Indian warehouse carried a 40-day credit period, so the remaining operational debt still crossed the Section 9 threshold. It also held that a later tripartite arrangement, executed after default, did not establish any pre-existing dispute, and that a mismatch between the demand notice and the insolvency claim was explained by post-notice part-payments and contractual interest. The rejection of the Section 9 application was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
