https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301989 Under Chapter XIII A of the Original Side Rules, final judgment may be refused only if the defendant fails to show a good defence on the merits or facts sufficient to defend. A plea that the advance was capital contribution was treated as sham because it lacked particulars and was inconsistent with interest payments and tax deduction at source. At the same time, limitation remained a substantial defence because, for centralized filing, limitation stops when the plaint is filed there, though the actual filing date required evidence where records showed different filing and presentation dates. The suit therefore proceeded in the ordinary course. en-us Fri, 09 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Apr 2022 14:28:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301989 Under Chapter XIII A of the Original Side Rules, final judgment may be refused only if the defendant fails to show a good defence on the merits or facts sufficient to defend. A plea that the advance was capital contribution was treated as sham because it lacked particulars and was inconsistent with interest payments and tax deduction at source. At the same time, limitation remained a substantial defence because, for centralized filing, limitation stops when the plaint is filed there, though the actual filing date required evidence where records showed different filing and presentation dates. The suit therefore proceeded in the ordinary course. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 09 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301989