Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Condonation of an inordinate refiling delay was refused where...
Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan approval.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Condonation of an inordinate refiling delay was refused where the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for curing repeated defects in an appeal against approval of a resolution plan. The NCLAT held that liberal consideration of refiling delay depends on the facts of each case, but the appellant had acted without promptness after repeated defect notifications, and the appeal was filed after approval and implementation of the resolution plan. General explanations of logistical difficulty, bulky papers and holidays were found insufficient, and non-deposit of the requisite fee indicated lack of diligence. The application for condonation was rejected, and the memorandum of appeal was consequently rejected.
Condonation of an inordinate refiling delay was refused where the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for curing repeated defects in an appeal against approval of a resolution plan. The NCLAT held that liberal consideration of refiling delay depends on the facts of each case, but the appellant had acted without promptness after repeated defect notifications, and the appeal was filed after approval and implementation of the resolution plan. General explanations of logistical difficulty, bulky papers and holidays were found insufficient, and non-deposit of the requisite fee indicated lack of diligence. The application for condonation was rejected, and the memorandum of appeal was consequently rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.