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...
A registered sub-lease deed creating a first charge can constitute a security interest under the Insolvency Code, so NOIDA was not to be treated as an ordinary operational creditor and the resolution plan's distribution had to be reconsidered to that extent. By contrast, the lender's assignee could claim no higher security than the assignor, and its security over a real estate project was confined to unsold inventory because allotments to homebuyers were protected under RERA; the plan payment to the dissenting secured creditor therefore did not breach Sections 30(2)(b) or 53. Objections on valuation and plan comparison fell within the CoC's commercial wisdom, and no material irregularity was shown.
A registered sub-lease deed creating a first charge can constitute a security interest under the Insolvency Code, so NOIDA was not to be treated as an ordinary operational creditor and the resolution plan's distribution had to be reconsidered to that extent. By contrast, the lender's assignee could claim no higher security than the assignor, and its security over a real estate project was confined to unsold inventory because allotments to homebuyers were protected under RERA; the plan payment to the dissenting secured creditor therefore did not breach Sections 30(2)(b) or 53. Objections on valuation and plan comparison fell within the CoC's commercial wisdom, and no material irregularity was shown.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
