Deductibility for charitable donations affirmed where payments to approved relief funds, even if CSR-driven, qualify under the donation deduction sche...
Mis-declaration in import descriptions must be deliberate to justify confiscation; withheld contemporaneous import documents invalidate value redeterm...
Liability for EPCG export shortfall: duty and interest sustained, but confiscation and penalties quashed where no fraud and causes beyond importer con...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5321 to 5340 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Where proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are governed by Section 424 of the Companies Act, the adjudicatory process must comply with natural justice and the prescribed procedural course. The Appellate Tribunal held that an order shown for pronouncement without a concluded hearing, without a fixed pronouncement date, without an ex parte direction, and without deciding a pending application for additional documents was procedurally defective and ex parte in substance. It further held that an application challenging such defects was a recall application, not a review, so dismissal for want of review jurisdiction was erroneous. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after deciding the document application, subject to costs.
Where proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are governed by Section 424 of the Companies Act, the adjudicatory process must comply with natural justice and the prescribed procedural course. The Appellate Tribunal held that an order shown for pronouncement without a concluded hearing, without a fixed pronouncement date, without an ex parte direction, and without deciding a pending application for additional documents was procedurally defective and ex parte in substance. It further held that an application challenging such defects was a recall application, not a review, so dismissal for want of review jurisdiction was erroneous. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after deciding the document application, subject to costs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
