<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Section 10A exclusion and pre-existing dispute standards applied to restore an insolvency claim under Section 9.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98274</link>
    <description>Section 10A exclusion under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must be computed with the correct contractual credit period, and invoices cannot be mechanically placed in the excluded period without reference to the supply terms. The tribunal found that goods from the Indian warehouse carried a 40-day credit period, so the remaining operational debt still crossed the Section 9 threshold. It also held that a later tripartite arrangement, executed after default, did not establish any pre-existing dispute, and that a mismatch between the demand notice and the insolvency claim was explained by post-notice part-payments and contractual interest. The rejection of the Section 9 application was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 07:51:09 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 07:51:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=894239" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Section 10A exclusion and pre-existing dispute standards applied to restore an insolvency claim under Section 9.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98274</link>
      <description>Section 10A exclusion under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must be computed with the correct contractual credit period, and invoices cannot be mechanically placed in the excluded period without reference to the supply terms. The tribunal found that goods from the Indian warehouse carried a 40-day credit period, so the remaining operational debt still crossed the Section 9 threshold. It also held that a later tripartite arrangement, executed after default, did not establish any pre-existing dispute, and that a mismatch between the demand notice and the insolvency claim was explained by post-notice part-payments and contractual interest. The rejection of the Section 9 application was set aside.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 07:51:09 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98274</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>