Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
