Extended reassessment limitation in search cases requires asset-linked escaped income, invalidating additions based only on unexplained money or expen...
Enhanced tolerance band under section 43CA applies retrospectively, deleting qualifying deemed-sale additions while disputed stamp valuation requires ...
Customs transaction value rejection requires communicated reasonable doubt, while written reassessment acceptance preserves challenges to enhanced val...
Challenge-mechanism compliance clarifications permitted, while unilateral revised resolution plans may be refused under creditors' commercial discreti...
Insolvency and BankruptcyJanuary 24, 2022Case LawsAT
Validity of Resolution Plan - Category A are those assets which are required for the Corporate Debtor for running the business and non-core assets are those assets which are not required for running the business - The Resolution Applicant unable to justify the basis of categorization of the Financial Creditors in category A and B. It is undisputed that when this resolution plan was submitted before the CoC at that time the Appellant has raised a serious objection in regard to categorization. The Resolution Applicant is unable to convince us that the categorization is based on sound principle. - The Respondents are unable to convince that on pro-rata basis why the Canara Bank is getting more amount in comparison to the Appellant. Therefore, we hold that the resolution plan is discriminatory between two set of creditors similarly situated and is in violation of the IBC. - AT
Validity of Resolution Plan - Category A are those assets which are required for the Corporate Debtor for running the business and non-core assets are those assets which are not required for running the business - The Resolution Applicant unable to justify the basis of categorization of the Financial Creditors in category A and B. It is undisputed that when this resolution plan was submitted before the CoC at that time the Appellant has raised a serious objection in regard to categorization. The Resolution Applicant is unable to convince us that the categorization is based on sound principle. - The Respondents are unable to convince that on pro-rata basis why the Canara Bank is getting more amount in comparison to the Appellant. Therefore, we hold that the resolution plan is discriminatory between two set of creditors similarly situated and is in violation of the IBC. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
