Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner in Form DRC-01 on 31.10.2023. A personal hearing was offered on 15.11.2023. However, the petitioner had neither filed its reply nor availed the opportunity for a personal hearing.
NCLAT Delhi held that the cause of action for filing the under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code arose on 16.12.2010, whereas, filing of an application in the year 2019 is hopelessly barred by time.
Delhi High Court held that initiation of reassessment proceedings beyond period of 3 years from end of relevant A.Y. quashed since escaped assessment is below threshold limit of Rs. 50 Lakhs. Thus, petition allowed and order quashed.
KSK Mahanadi Power Company Limited (Corporate Debtor) is a company engaged in business of power generation. The Corporate Debtor was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process on 03.10.2019.
NCLAT Delhi held that admission of application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) for initiation of CIRP of Corporate Debtor untenable due to pre-existing dispute surrounding operational debt.
Held that there is no ownership in law which can be recognized insofar as the appellant herein is concerned inasmuch as his name has not been entered in the registration certificate concerning the vehicle in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Delhi High Court held that an audit report cannot be regarded as an order of determination under section 72, 73 or 73A of the Finance Act, 1994 hence benefit under Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) cannot be deprived.
The moot question arises to be determined here is whether in cases where the amount of default is less than 1 Crore, the Personal Guarantor can be treated as Insolvent and the application under Section 95 can be maintained against him.
After the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court I.A. 961/2024 was filed by the RP before the Adjudicating Adjudicating Authority who has reserved the Judgment in I.A. 5283/2022, i.e. Plan approval Application de-reserved the same.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition of all the cash deposits as unexplained income without giving credit for the withdrawal not justified. Accordingly, matter restored back to the file of AO for de novo consideration.
