Permanent-establishment reassessment cannot revisit scrutinised disclosures; extended reopening fails without undisclosed material facts and within st...
Modified returns after business reorganisation must be assessed within pending proceedings, barring parallel scrutiny and consequential transfer prici...
Restoration of an insolvency application dismissed for non-prosecution can be supported by sufficient cause where former counsel deliberately failed to appear or enable substitution despite a continuing vakalatnama; that default should not be attributed to the litigant. Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules prescribes a 30-day restoration period but does not expressly prohibit a later recall request. Section 238A applies the Limitation Act, as far as may be, to insolvency proceedings, allowing Section 5 condonation on sufficient cause. Where the restoration request itself explains the delay, a separate condonation application is unnecessary, permitting merits consideration of the underlying claim.
Restoration of an insolvency application dismissed for non-prosecution can be supported by sufficient cause where former counsel deliberately failed to appear or enable substitution despite a continuing vakalatnama; that default should not be attributed to the litigant. Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules prescribes a 30-day restoration period but does not expressly prohibit a later recall request. Section 238A applies the Limitation Act, as far as may be, to insolvency proceedings, allowing Section 5 condonation on sufficient cause. Where the restoration request itself explains the delay, a separate condonation application is unnecessary, permitting merits consideration of the underlying claim.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
