Reversal of input tax credit in proportion to exempt supply: specificity of show-cause notice required; order set aside, fresh proceedings allowed wit...
Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code requires the existence of a financial debt and default, but the Supreme Court held that insolvency cannot be used as a coercive recovery tool. Reading the quadripartite agreement, the Court found that the disbursement was made to the builder and was tied to construction, transfer, refund contingencies, non-transfer without consent, and security creation, making the dispute predominantly contractual rather than a simple lending default. As recovery proceedings were already pending before the DRT, initiation of CIRP was unwarranted and the refusal to admit the Section 7 application was upheld.
Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code requires the existence of a financial debt and default, but the Supreme Court held that insolvency cannot be used as a coercive recovery tool. Reading the quadripartite agreement, the Court found that the disbursement was made to the builder and was tied to construction, transfer, refund contingencies, non-transfer without consent, and security creation, making the dispute predominantly contractual rather than a simple lending default. As recovery proceedings were already pending before the DRT, initiation of CIRP was unwarranted and the refusal to admit the Section 7 application was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
