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...
Scope of CIRP costs - Section 5(13) and Regulation 31 - waterfall mechanism - contract was completed during the CIRP period - The Tribunal emphasized that for a claim to be classified as CIRP cost, it must be directly related to maintaining the Corporate Debtor as a going concern and approved by the CoC. The primacy of CoC in such determinations. - Regarding Role of Contractual Terms: The Tribunal noted that payments to RBM Enterprises were contingent on NTPC payments to SHEL, which did not materialize. Therefore, the claim did not qualify as a CIRP cost. - Ultimately, the Tribunal overturned the Adjudicating Authority's order, declaring that the claim by RBM Enterprises does not meet the criteria for CIRP costs and should be classified under Section 53 of the Code for liquidation distribution.
Scope of CIRP costs - Section 5(13) and Regulation 31 - waterfall mechanism - contract was completed during the CIRP period - The Tribunal emphasized that for a claim to be classified as CIRP cost, it must be directly related to maintaining the Corporate Debtor as a going concern and approved by the CoC. The primacy of CoC in such determinations. - Regarding Role of Contractual Terms: The Tribunal noted that payments to RBM Enterprises were contingent on NTPC payments to SHEL, which did not materialize. Therefore, the claim did not qualify as a CIRP cost. - Ultimately, the Tribunal overturned the Adjudicating Authority's order, declaring that the claim by RBM Enterprises does not meet the criteria for CIRP costs and should be classified under Section 53 of the Code for liquidation distribution.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
