Income Disclosure Scheme immunity and search-material requirements barred further share-transaction additions in unabated assessments under section 15...
Toy balloon tariff classification: functional heading prevails over residual rubber and festive article headings, supporting penalties for deliberate ...
Customs valuation using comparable contemporaneous imports can displace declared value, while missing speaking orders require pursuit before competent...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Unregistered profit-sharing agreements did not create any...
Unregistered profit-sharing agreements cannot justify occupation of corporate debtor premises during CIRP; repossession by the Resolution Professional upheld.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Unregistered profit-sharing agreements did not create any leasehold or licence interest in the corporate debtor's hotel premises, so the appellant had no enforceable right to remain in possession. The Tribunal found that no valid legal basis supported occupation of the second and third floor premises, and the alleged arrangements could not defeat recovery of possession after commencement of CIRP. It further held that, once CIRP began, the Resolution Professional was entitled to take possession and control of the corporate debtor's assets, and an application before the Adjudicating Authority to recover unauthorised occupation was maintainable without separate civil proceedings. The appeal was dismissed.
Unregistered profit-sharing agreements did not create any leasehold or licence interest in the corporate debtor's hotel premises, so the appellant had no enforceable right to remain in possession. The Tribunal found that no valid legal basis supported occupation of the second and third floor premises, and the alleged arrangements could not defeat recovery of possession after commencement of CIRP. It further held that, once CIRP began, the Resolution Professional was entitled to take possession and control of the corporate debtor's assets, and an application before the Adjudicating Authority to recover unauthorised occupation was maintainable without separate civil proceedings. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.