Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
801 to 820 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
