Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Insolvency and BankruptcyApril 30, 2024Case LawsAT
CIRP - Validity of resolution plan - Nil Payment to Operational Creditors - waterfall mechanism - The Appellate Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' contention that fairness and equity should be ensured in the distribution of funds, including payment to operational creditors. However, it held that since the liquidation value of the corporate debtor was NIL, and the amount distributed to the corporate debtor under the resolution plan would also be NIL, the plan did not violate Section 30(2)(b) of the IBC. The Tribunal upheld the commercial wisdom of the CoC in approving the resolution plan. It cited established legal precedents that the CoC's decision is beyond judicial review, especially when it does not contravene any provisions of the law. The Tribunal found no error in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.
CIRP - Validity of resolution plan - Nil Payment to Operational Creditors - waterfall mechanism - The Appellate Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' contention that fairness and equity should be ensured in the distribution of funds, including payment to operational creditors. However, it held that since the liquidation value of the corporate debtor was NIL, and the amount distributed to the corporate debtor under the resolution plan would also be NIL, the plan did not violate Section 30(2)(b) of the IBC. The Tribunal upheld the commercial wisdom of the CoC in approving the resolution plan. It cited established legal precedents that the CoC's decision is beyond judicial review, especially when it does not contravene any provisions of the law. The Tribunal found no error in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
