Outcome: The writ petitions were disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with a delay condonation application and statutory pre-deposit.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the appellate tribunal within the stipulated time, with interim protection continued for a limited period to enable filing of the appeal.

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable before the Patna High Court in relation to an assessment order passed by the proper officer at Chandigarh.

Analysis: The impugned order was passed by the ETO-cum-Proper Officer at Chandigarh on the petitioner's return filed there. The Court held that the challenge to that order lay before the competent forum having appellate or supervisory jurisdiction over that authority, and that the mere fact that some underlying transactions involved locations at Patna, Delhi and Chandigarh did not confer territorial jurisdiction on the Patna High Court.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable before the Patna High Court and was dismissed as not entertained.

Issues: (i) Whether scholarships disbursed in India to Indian students for pursuing higher studies abroad amount to application of income outside India so as to attract section 11(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and justify al of registration. (ii) Whether, on the facts found, the assessee was entitled to registration under section 12AB and consequential approval under section 80G.

Issue (i): Whether scholarships disbursed in India to Indian students for pursuing higher studies abroad amount to application of income outside India so as to attract section 11(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and justify refusal of registration.

Analysis: The scholarships were paid in India, in Indian currency, directly to the students or their guardians, and no amount was remitted to any foreign university or institution. The mere fact that the students later used the assistance for studies abroad did not convert a domestic disbursement into an application of income outside India. The bar in section 11(1)(c) applies where income is applied for purposes outside India, which was not the position on the facts found.

Conclusion: Section 11(1)(c) was not attracted, and the scholarship activity could not be treated as application of income outside India.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts found, the assessee was entitled to registration under section 12AB and consequential approval under section 80G.

Analysis: The assessee's objects were charitable and educational, the scholarship activity was held to be within the permitted charitable framework, and the record showed a long charitable history with audited accounts and the requisite forms filed. Since the principal reason for rejection did not survive, the consequential refusal under section 80G also could not stand.

Conclusion: Registration under section 12AB was directed to be granted, and approval under section 80G was also directed to be allowed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in both appeals, and the rejection of registration as well as the connected denial of approval were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Scholarships paid in India to Indian students for foreign study are not, by that fact alone, an application of income outside India; where the underlying activity remains charitable and educational, denial of registration on that ground is unsustainable.

Issues: Whether the deletion of the addition made on account of unexplained salary paid in cash was sustainable in the absence of further enquiry or remand verification, despite seized material and a statement recorded during search indicating cash salary payments.

Analysis: The addition had been made not merely on the basis of loose papers and seized documents, but also on the strength of a statement recorded under search in which cash payment of salary was able. The appellate authority deleted the addition without further verification or remand, and without dealing with the material gathered during search. The Tribunal held that these relevant facts were ignored and that the deletion could not be sustained. The cross objection supporting the deletion was also rendered untenable once the revenue's appeal on the same issue succeeded.

Conclusion: The addition was restored and the revenue succeeded on the issue; the cross objection was dismissed.

Issues: Whether exemption under section 10(26) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was available on salary income claimed by a Scheduled Tribe assessee residing in a specified area while working from home, and whether the claim could be finally adjudicated on the material placed on record.

Analysis: Exemption under section 10(26) is available only when the assessee is a member of a Scheduled Tribe, resides in the specified area, and the income accrues or arises from a source situated in that area. The territorial nexus between the income and the notified area is essential. Salary income ordinarily accrues where the services are rendered, but the place of the employer's head office is not by itself decisive. In the present case, the assessee established Scheduled Tribe status and residence in Meghalaya, but the employer's certificate did not clearly show that work from home continued for the entire year or set out the employment terms needed to determine the source and situs of accrual of salary income with certainty.

Conclusion: The exemption claim was not finally determined on merits and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the claim under section 10(26) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issues: Whether foreign tax credit could be denied merely because Form No. 67 was filed after the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether Rule 128(9) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 is mandatory or directory.

Analysis: The assessee had claimed foreign tax credit under section 90/90A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of tax paid abroad and had furnished Form No. 67 belatedly. The Court relied on the settled view that Rule 128(9) prescribes the procedure for claiming foreign tax credit, but does not create a substantive bar or authorise denial of the credit for delayed filing of Form No. 67. It treated the filing requirement as directory, not mandatory, and held that the double taxation avoidance treaty and section 90 operate to grant relief where foreign tax has been paid, subject to the legal conditions of the treaty and the Act.

Conclusion: Foreign tax credit could not be refused solely on account of delayed filing of Form No. 67, and the assessee was entitled to the credit.

Issues: Whether salary received in Australia for services rendered in Australia was taxable in India in the assessee's hands, and whether foreign tax credit for tax paid in Australia was admissible.

Analysis: The assessee rendered services in Australia and received salary there, which was also subjected to tax in Australia. In view of Article 15 of the India-Australia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, salary is taxable in the State where the services are rendered. The core issue, therefore, was not merely the delayed filing of Form 67 under Rule 128(9) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, but whether the salary income itself could be brought to tax in India. Since the income was earned for services rendered in Australia, it was not chargeable to tax in India. Consequentially, foreign tax credit could not survive once the salary was excluded from Indian taxation.

Conclusion: The salary income earned in Australia was held not taxable in India, and the foreign tax credit claimed in respect of that income was disallowed. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the estimated commission income from facilitation of sale of immovable properties at 1% of the sale consideration required reduction.

Analysis: The incriminating material showed that commission had been earned for brokering property deals, but the estimate at 1% was made without independent enquiry from the concerned parties regarding the actual commission paid or the extent of sharing with other brokers. In the circumstances, a lower estimate was considered appropriate to balance the material on record and the absence of corroborative enquiry.

Conclusion: The estimated commission income was reduced from 1% to 0.50%, and the addition was partly sustained in the reduced amount.

Issues: (i) whether notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was mandatory before completing reassessment under section 147; and (ii) whether orders styled as draft assessment orders were invalid where they were accompanied by demand notices, computation sheets, and penalty proceedings, thereby breaching section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was mandatory before completing reassessment under section 147.

Analysis: The assessment records did not show issuance of notice under section 143(2), and the departmental report also stated that copies of such notices were not available. The binding decisions relied upon, including those on reassessment and analogous reopening provisions, establish that when reassessment is undertaken, the procedural safeguard of section 143(2) must be complied with before framing an assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147.

Conclusion: The requirement of notice under section 143(2) was mandatory, and the reassessment orders were without jurisdiction for want of such notice.

Issue (ii): Whether orders styled as draft assessment orders were invalid where they were accompanied by demand notices, computation sheets, and penalty proceedings, thereby breaching section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The so-called draft assessment orders themselves directed assessment, computation of tax, issuance of demand notices under section 156, and initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Under section 144C, a draft order is only a order and final demand can arise only after completion of the statutory DRP process. The accompanying demand notices and penalty proceedings showed that the Assessing Officer had effectively concluded the assessment at the draft stage, defeating the mandatory sequence under section 144C(1), section 144C(3), and section 144C(13).

Conclusion: The purported draft assessment orders were invalid and without jurisdiction, and the consequential proceedings also could not survive.

Final Conclusion: The preliminary jurisdictional grounds succeeded, the impugned assessment orders were quashed, and the remaining grounds were treated as academic.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute prescribes a mandatory assessment procedure, including prior notice and a staged draft-order mechanism, failure to comply with those jurisdictional steps renders the assessment void and the resulting demand and penalty proceedings non est.

Issues: Whether Dividend Distribution Tax on dividends paid to Swiss resident shareholders was chargeable at the domestic rate under section 115-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or at the beneficial rate prescribed under Article 10 of the India-Switzerland DTAA.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the effect of section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, vis-a -vis section 115-O. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that DDT is covered by the treaty and that the rate applicable to dividend under the relevant DTAA cannot be ignored merely because the levy is collected from the dividend-paying company. The Tribunal also noted that the beneficial ownership objection was not raised as a live dispute before the lower authorities.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that DDT could not exceed 10% under Article 10(2) of the India-Switzerland DTAA and directed refund of tax paid in excess of that rate.

Issues: (i) Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D could exceed the exempt dividend income earned during the year; (ii) whether profits of the SEZ unit eligible under section 10AA were to be excluded while computing book profit under section 115JB for Assessment Year 2011-12; (iii) whether deduction under section 10AA was allowable on trading profits for Assessment Year 2011-12 and on alleged SEZ activities for Assessment Year 2012-13; (iv) whether outstanding trade liabilities were liable to be treated as cessation of liability under section 41(1); and (v) whether the sundry creditors were liable to be added under section 68 for want of proof of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness.

Issue (i): Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D could exceed the exempt dividend income earned during the year.

Analysis: The disallowance under section 14A is confined to expenditure relatable to exempt income, and where the exempt income earned is lower than the amount computed under Rule 8D, the disallowance cannot cross the amount of exempt income actually earned. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that the statutory disallowance cannot be greater than the exempt income of the relevant previous year.

Conclusion: The disallowance was restricted to the exempt income of Rs. 4,50,000, and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether profits of the SEZ unit eligible under section 10AA were to be excluded while computing book profit under section 115JB for Assessment Year 2011-12.

Analysis: For Assessment Year 2011-12, section 115JB(6) remained operative and provided that section 115JB would not apply to income accruing to an entrepreneur or developer from business carried on in a Special Economic Zone. The subsequent withdrawal by the Finance Act, 2011 was prospective from 01.04.2012. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional precedent holding that SEZ profits were the ambit of Minimum Alternate Tax during the period when section 115JB(6) continued to operate.

Conclusion: The exclusion of SEZ manufacturing profits from book profit was upheld, and the Revenue failed on this issue.

Issue (iii): Whether deduction under section 10AA was allowable on trading profits for Assessment Year 2011-12 and on alleged SEZ activities for Assessment Year 2012-13.

Analysis: For Assessment Year 2011-12, the assessee failed to substantiate that the trading profit represented eligible operations of the SEZ unit. For Assessment Year 2012-13, despite a remand and further enquiries, the assessee did not produce cogent evidence of actual manufacturing or eligible trading activity in the SEZ unit. The burden to establish fulfilment of statutory conditions for exemption or deduction lay on the assessee, and the concurrent factual findings showed that the conditions were not proved.

Conclusion: The denial of deduction under section 10AA was sustained for both years, and the assessee failed on this issue.

Issue (iv): Whether outstanding trade liabilities were liable to be treated as cessation of liability under section 41(1).

Analysis: The Assessing Officer and the Tribunal's remand findings showed that the assessee did not furnish confirmations, payment evidence, or material showing continued subsistence of the liabilities despite repeated opportunities. Mere book entries were insufficient to establish that the liabilities remained enforceable and subsisting.

Conclusion: The addition under section 41(1) was upheld against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether the sundry creditors were liable to be added under section 68 for want of proof of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness.

Analysis: The assessee failed to discharge the burden under section 68 despite de novo enquiry and notices under section 133(6). The authorities found that the creditors' identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions were not satisfactorily established, and no material was produced to show perversity in those findings.

Conclusion: The addition under section 68 was sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to exclusion of SEZ manufacturing profits from MAT computation failed, the assessee obtained relief on the section 14A issue, and the remaining additions and disallowances were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed exempt income actually earned; SEZ profits remained outside MAT where section 115JB(6) was operative and its withdrawal was prospective; and deduction or exemption claims must be proved by the assessee through cogent evidence of statutory eligibility.

Issues: (i) whether depreciation on non-compete fee was allowable and whether the appellate authority was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to give consequential effect to the Tribunal's earlier decision; (ii) whether the cost of production of TV serials and programmes was to be treated as revenue expenditure or as capital expenditure allowing only depreciation; (iii) whether the addition on account of alleged short recognition of subscription revenue was sustainable without proper verification of the actual figures.

Issue (i): whether depreciation on non-compete fee was allowable and whether the appellate authority was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to give consequential effect to the Tribunal's earlier decision.

Analysis: The earlier decision in the assessee's own case had already remitted the non-compete fee issue for consequential action, and the appellate authority had only directed implementation of that earlier view. The direction was not treated as an impermissible fresh remand. In the absence of any contrary binding decision, the Tribunal applied the same approach for the year under appeal.

Conclusion: The direction to give consequential effect was upheld and the revenue's challenge on this issue failed.

Issue (ii): whether the cost of production of TV serials and programmes was to be treated as revenue expenditure or as capital expenditure allowing only depreciation.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier order in the assessee's own case and the connected group cases, where similar production expenditure on television content had been accepted on the same footing as earlier years. The revenue's objection based on Rule 9A and Rule 9B was not accepted in view of the settled earlier view and the need for consistency in identical facts.

Conclusion: The appellate order allowing the claim was sustained and the revenue's grounds were dismissed.

Issue (iii): whether the addition on account of alleged short recognition of subscription revenue was sustainable without proper verification of the actual figures.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the estimated subscription revenue recorded at year-end matched the actual subscription revenue later ascertained from customer data. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer and the appellate authority had proceeded on an accounting assumption without fully verifying the actual records and evidence. The correct income figure required factual examination rather than a purely abstract application of mercantile accounting.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and decision on the basis of the actual facts and supporting evidence.

Final Conclusion: The revenue appeal failed, while the assessee's appeal succeeded only to the extent of a remand on the subscription revenue issue, leaving the remaining findings in favour of the assessee undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Identical issues governed by earlier orders and requiring only consequential effect should be followed on the principle of consistency, while disputed income recognition must be determined on verified actual facts and evidence rather than assumption alone.

Issues: Whether an allotment letter fixing the property, consideration and payment terms can constitute an agreement for the purpose of the first and second provisos to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the matter required verification of the factual conditions before the addition could be sustained.

Analysis: The assessee had relied on an allotment letter dated 12.11.2014 and evidence of part payment through banking channels to claim that the stamp duty value as on the allotment date should govern the valuation under section 56(2)(vii)(b). The Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority had proceeded on the footing that only a registered agreement could attract the provisos. The Tribunal held that this approach was too narrow. It noted that several coordinate bench decisions had recognised that an allotment letter embodying the essential terms of the transaction and creating enforceable rights and obligations may satisfy the expression "agreement" in the provisos, provided the statutory condition regarding non-cash payment on or before the agreement date is fulfilled. At the same time, the Tribunal observed that the relevant factual elements had not been properly verified, including whether the allotment letter fixed the consideration, whether the banking-channel payment condition was met, and whether the stamp duty value as on the allotment date could be adopted on that basis.

Conclusion: The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for limited verification of the statutory conditions and recomputation, if necessary; the assessee succeeded to that extent.

Issues: (i) Whether, for the purpose of section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the stamp duty valuation as on the date of the original allotment in 2012 could be adopted where the original allotment was cancelled and a fresh allotment culminated in a registered agreement in 2017. (ii) Whether, after the assessee disputed the stamp duty valuation and furnished a valuation report, the matter ought to have been referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer before computing the addition.

Issue (i): Whether, for the purpose of section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the stamp duty valuation as on the date of the original allotment in 2012 could be adopted where the original allotment was cancelled and a fresh allotment culminated in a registered agreement in 2017.

Analysis: The original allotment dated 17.04.2012 stood cancelled and the rights arising therefrom were extinguished. A fresh allotment of a different flat was thereafter made on 06.05.2016, followed by the registered agreement dated 14.08.2017. The subsequent transaction was therefore not a mere continuation of the earlier allotment. The assessee's reliance on the earlier date of allotment for valuation was not accepted.

Conclusion: The plea to adopt the 2012 valuation was rejected and the Revenue's view was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether, after the assessee disputed the stamp duty valuation and furnished a valuation report, the matter ought to have been referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer before computing the addition.

Analysis: Once the stamp valuation was specifically disputed and a valuation report was placed on record, a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer was warranted before finalising the taxable difference. The matter was therefore required to be restored for limited verification and recomputation after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for DVO verification and fresh computation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the claim for adoption of the earlier valuation date, but succeeded on the limited question of DVO reference, leading to a partial relief with restoration of that issue for fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an original allotment is cancelled and replaced by a fresh allotment culminating in a later registered agreement, the later transaction date governs valuation for section 56(2)(x); however, if the stamp valuation is specifically disputed with supporting material, a DVO reference should be made before determining the addition.

Issues: Whether the alleged financial debt and default under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 could be treated as established despite serious discrepancies in the transaction documents and allegations that the facility was routed through an unauthorised or fraudulent bank account; and whether the doctrine of indoor management could protect the financial creditor in the face of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the facility agreement, corporate guarantee, and board resolutions.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged financial debt and default under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 could be treated as established despite serious discrepancies in the transaction documents and allegations that the facility was routed through an unauthorised or fraudulent bank account.

Analysis: The documentary record disclosed multiple versions of the facility agreement and corporate guarantee, inconsistencies in dates and signatures, and board resolutions that did not align with the company records. The surrounding circumstances also included criminal complaints, civil proceedings, and forensic material suggesting that the funds were not received and utilised by the borrower in the ordinary course, but were diverted through a disputed account. In such a setting, the mere existence of asserted debt and default could not be viewed in isolation, because the foundational issue was whether there was a valid disbursement giving rise to a financial debt at all.

Conclusion: The alleged debt and default were not treated as sufficient for admission under Section 7, and the rejection of the application was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the doctrine of indoor management could protect the financial creditor in the face of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the facility agreement, corporate guarantee, and board resolutions.

Analysis: The protection of indoor management is unavailable where the surrounding circumstances are suspicious and call for inquiry. Here, the inconsistencies in the foundational documents, the disputed authority of the executing individual, and the allegations of fabrication and fraud made the transaction inherently suspect. In such circumstances, the creditor could not rely on ostensible internal compliance to sustain a claim based on disputed corporate authorisations.

Conclusion: The doctrine of indoor management did not assist the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the Tribunal found no basis to interfere with the order refusing insolvency admission under Section 7, the disputed transaction being clouded by serious fraud-related inconsistencies and unauthorised documentation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the foundational documents of a claimed financial debt are materially inconsistent and the surrounding circumstances prima facie indicate fraud or unauthorised routing of funds, the adjudicating forum may decline admission under Section 7 without treating asserted debt and default as established.

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to restoration of the appeal and revival of the insolvency proceedings on account of breach of the court-recorded consent terms.

Analysis: The appeal had been disposed of on the basis of consent terms and the earlier CIRP admission order had been set aside, with express liberty reserved to revive the proceedings on default. The record showed substantial and continuing non-compliance with the repayment schedule under the settlement, and the alleged later efforts to sell property did not erase the admitted defaults. The Tribunal held that obligations undertaken before a judicial forum had to be strictly complied with and that the reserved liberty to revive could be invoked upon breach.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to restoration of the appeal and revival of the insolvency proceedings. The order disposing of the appeal was recalled and the restoration application was allowed.

Outcome: The matter was directed to be listed before Bench No. 1 along with the clarificatory application on the next date, with notice to the Adjudicating Authority regarding the pending consideration.

Issues: (i) whether the appellant was a related party of the corporate debtor within the meaning of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (ii) whether the rejection of the claim relating to the HSBC facility was sustainable; (iii) whether the appellant could be treated as a secured creditor in respect of the immovable properties of the corporate debtor; (iv) whether Notification No. FEMA.29/RB-2000 dated 26.09.2000 governed the claim and whether any post-facto approval of the Reserve Bank of India could enlarge the admitted claim; and (v) whether the challenge to the resolution plan and the Committee of Creditors' distribution decision disclosed any ground for interference.

Issue (i): whether the appellant was a related party of the corporate debtor within the meaning of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The appellant held control over a downstream corporate chain through its holding in Leader Universal (Mauritius), which in turn held the controlling stake in the corporate debtor. The statutory definition of related party under Section 5(24)(i) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with the meanings of holding company, subsidiary company and associate company under the Companies Act, 2013, was satisfied. The existence of de facto control and the ability to influence board composition also brought the appellant within Section 5(24)(l).

Conclusion: The appellant was correctly held to be a related party of the corporate debtor.

Issue (ii): whether the rejection of the claim relating to the HSBC facility was sustainable.

Analysis: The HSBC claim was founded on a hold cover arrangement, but the payment under that facility was made by Leader Cable Industry Berhad and not by Leader Berhad. In the absence of a formal guarantee by Leader Berhad in respect of HSBC, no assignable debt in relation to that facility could be shown to have passed to the appellant.

Conclusion: The decision rejecting the claim relating to HSBC was rightly sustained.

Issue (iii): whether the appellant could be treated as a secured creditor in respect of the immovable properties of the corporate debtor.

Analysis: The security originally stood in favour of the Indian lenders. Upon invocation of guarantees and payment by the non-resident guarantor, the rights claimed through subrogation and assignment could not, without Reserve Bank of India permission, extend to immovable property situated in India. Section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 controlled the acquisition of such interest, and the assignment deed did not show transfer of any underlying security over immovable assets. Consequently, the appellant could not derive secured creditor status in relation to the immovable properties of the corporate debtor.

Conclusion: The appellant was not a secured creditor in respect of the immovable properties of the corporate debtor.

Issue (iv): whether Notification No. FEMA.29/RB-2000 dated 26.09.2000 governed the claim and whether any post-facto approval of the Reserve Bank of India could enlarge the admitted claim.

Analysis: The notification applied to the claim arising from reimbursement to a non-resident guarantor and capped recovery to the rupee equivalent of the amount paid by the guarantor. The attempt to admit interest far beyond the amount actually paid was inconsistent with that cap. The claim could not be enlarged by seeking post-facto approval where the statutory and regulatory framework itself imposed a limit on the amount recoverable.

Conclusion: The notification was applicable, the claim had to be confined to the amount actually paid, and post-facto approval could not validate the excess claim.

Issue (v): whether the challenge to the resolution plan and the Committee of Creditors' distribution decision disclosed any ground for interference.

Analysis: The resolution plan had been approved by overwhelming voting share. The distribution mechanism adopted by the Committee of Creditors and the direction keeping the plan subject to the outcome of pending appeals did not disclose any legal infirmity. No ground under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was made out to interfere with the commercial decision of the Committee of Creditors.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the resolution plan approval or the Committee of Creditors' distribution decision.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by sustaining the related-party finding, upholding rejection of the HSBC-related claim, restricting the admissible claim to the principal amount actually paid, denying secured creditor status over immovable properties, and leaving the approved resolution plan substantially intact, with consequential redistribution to follow the appellate determination.

Ratio Decidendi: A claimant deriving rights through subrogation or assignment cannot assert secured creditor status over a corporate debtor's immovable property unless such security interest is lawfully created or transferred in compliance with the governing foreign exchange restrictions, and a regulatory cap on reimbursement limits the admitted claim to the amount actually paid.

Issues: Whether the personal guarantees were validly invoked before initiation of proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and whether the Adjudicating Authority correctly admitted the applications against the personal guarantors.

Analysis: The guarantee deed required a demand upon the guarantor, and the financial creditor relied on the invocation letter dated 26.11.2021, the recall notice dated 04.02.2022, the statutory demand notice dated 20.12.2022, and the recovery proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The service clause in the guarantee deed treated dispatch to the last known address, supported by the creditor's certificate, as sufficient proof of service. The appellants also admitted the material facts relating to invocation, recall, and DRT proceedings. On the record, the notices and proceedings collectively established that the guarantors were called upon to discharge the liability under the guarantee before the Section 95 applications were filed. The report of the Resolution Professional was recommendatory, and the Adjudicating Authority had independently considered the material before admitting the applications.

Conclusion: The personal guarantees were validly invoked, the requirement of demand and service stood satisfied, and the admission of the Section 95 applications was upheld.