Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 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" ?
A pre-existing dispute barred admission of the Section 9 insolvency application where the corporate debtor's reply to the demand notice expressly denied liability and disputed the claim amount, and prior correspondence had already recorded defects, delay and deficient performance. Applying the Mobilox test, the Tribunal held that it was enough that the defence disclosed a plausible dispute requiring further adjudication; the Adjudicating Authority was not to decide the merits of the contractual controversy. The dispute was neither moonshine nor illusory, so insolvency could not be used as a substitute for recovery or contractual adjudication. The rejection of the Section 9 application was therefore affirmed, with liberty to pursue other remedies in law.
A pre-existing dispute barred admission of the Section 9 insolvency application where the corporate debtor's reply to the demand notice expressly denied liability and disputed the claim amount, and prior correspondence had already recorded defects, delay and deficient performance. Applying the Mobilox test, the Tribunal held that it was enough that the defence disclosed a plausible dispute requiring further adjudication; the Adjudicating Authority was not to decide the merits of the contractual controversy. The dispute was neither moonshine nor illusory, so insolvency could not be used as a substitute for recovery or contractual adjudication. The rejection of the Section 9 application was therefore affirmed, with liberty to pursue other remedies in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
