Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
