Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
A Section 9 IBC application cannot be admitted where the record shows a genuine and plausible pre-existing dispute before the demand notice. Applying Mobilox and later decisions, the Court held that the adjudicating authority at this stage only examines whether a plausible contention requiring investigation exists, not the ultimate merits of the dispute. Written complaints about defective supplies, repeated demands for reconciliation of accounts, a prior police complaint, discrepancies in ledger accounts, and shifting stands on the amount due showed no consensus on liability or quantum and indicated more than a sham defence. The NCLT had correctly rejected the application, and the NCLAT was wrong to reverse that finding.
A Section 9 IBC application cannot be admitted where the record shows a genuine and plausible pre-existing dispute before the demand notice. Applying Mobilox and later decisions, the Court held that the adjudicating authority at this stage only examines whether a plausible contention requiring investigation exists, not the ultimate merits of the dispute. Written complaints about defective supplies, repeated demands for reconciliation of accounts, a prior police complaint, discrepancies in ledger accounts, and shifting stands on the amount due showed no consensus on liability or quantum and indicated more than a sham defence. The NCLT had correctly rejected the application, and the NCLAT was wrong to reverse that finding.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.