Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Interference with an approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is confined to patent illegality, material irregularity, violation of mandatory law, or perversity, and a completed insolvency process cannot be reopened for mere dissatisfaction with claim treatment. The appellant's claim remained disputed and contingent throughout verification because of reciprocal contractual claims and counter-claims, so there was no admitted operational debt and no basis for invoking notice rights under Section 24(3)(c). Allegations of fraud, suppression, and procedural impropriety were unsupported, and the appellant showed no material prejudice affecting the resolution outcome. The appeal was dismissed, and the approved and implemented plan was left undisturbed.
Interference with an approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is confined to patent illegality, material irregularity, violation of mandatory law, or perversity, and a completed insolvency process cannot be reopened for mere dissatisfaction with claim treatment. The appellant's claim remained disputed and contingent throughout verification because of reciprocal contractual claims and counter-claims, so there was no admitted operational debt and no basis for invoking notice rights under Section 24(3)(c). Allegations of fraud, suppression, and procedural impropriety were unsupported, and the appellant showed no material prejudice affecting the resolution outcome. The appeal was dismissed, and the approved and implemented plan was left undisturbed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
