Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
