Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Section 29A(c) disqualification must be assessed on the date the resolution plan is submitted, and an earlier NPA-based default cannot be relied on once the relevant corporate debtor's CIRP has ended with approval of a resolution plan and change of management. The Supreme Court held that no dues in praesenti survived on that date, so the appellant was not ineligible under Section 29A(c); prior employment and later slump-sale acquisition were insufficient to attract the bar. It further held that Section 29A(j) is only derivative of a valid ineligibility under clauses (a) to (i), so the connected-person objection also failed. The appeals were allowed, the NCLAT orders were set aside, and the resolution plan was directed to be processed further.
Section 29A(c) disqualification must be assessed on the date the resolution plan is submitted, and an earlier NPA-based default cannot be relied on once the relevant corporate debtor's CIRP has ended with approval of a resolution plan and change of management. The Supreme Court held that no dues in praesenti survived on that date, so the appellant was not ineligible under Section 29A(c); prior employment and later slump-sale acquisition were insufficient to attract the bar. It further held that Section 29A(j) is only derivative of a valid ineligibility under clauses (a) to (i), so the connected-person objection also failed. The appeals were allowed, the NCLAT orders were set aside, and the resolution plan was directed to be processed further.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
