Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
