Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
The Appellate Tribunal held that rejection of a CoC-approved resolution plan cannot rest on a general perception of unfairness or material irregularity where the CIRP was conducted in accordance with the sole financial creditor's decisions and the Adjudicating Authority had not found statutory non-compliance or ineligibility. It also found no foundation for alleged informational asymmetry, because the Information Memorandum disclosed the mismatch in title documents and possession, access to the data room was available to all applicants, and bidding proceeded on an as is where is basis. The impugned rejection was set aside, the approval application was revived for fresh consideration, and the unsuccessful applicant's challenges were closed.
The Appellate Tribunal held that rejection of a CoC-approved resolution plan cannot rest on a general perception of unfairness or material irregularity where the CIRP was conducted in accordance with the sole financial creditor's decisions and the Adjudicating Authority had not found statutory non-compliance or ineligibility. It also found no foundation for alleged informational asymmetry, because the Information Memorandum disclosed the mismatch in title documents and possession, access to the data room was available to all applicants, and bidding proceeded on an as is where is basis. The impugned rejection was set aside, the approval application was revived for fresh consideration, and the unsuccessful applicant's challenges were closed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.