Allocation of registration charges: contractual clause overriding statutory presumption allowed as deduction against capital gain after unrebutted doc...
Expenditure tied to investments yielding exempt income restricted to attributable costs; broader disallowance disallowed and adjustments to WDV and mi...
Admissibility of Investigative Statements invalidated reliance on coerced emails and valuation redetermination, resulting in set aside of penalties an...
Classification of printed technical documents: specific Chapter 49.01 entry prevails, enabling claimed customs exemptions for imported manuals and rep...
Page of 4816
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5281 to 5300 of 96301 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.