Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, addressed the issue of forfeiture of INR 10 Crores by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) led by State Bank of India (SBI) and the alleged restraint by CoC. The Tribunal held that the forfeiture was lawful u/s Resolution Plan terms. The Appellant's failure to provide valid bank guarantees and meet financial commitments justified the forfeiture. The CoC's actions were deemed appropriate, and the Appellant's contentions were rejected. The Tribunal also found the Appellant's contradictory stance on the nature of the deposit. Referring to IBBI, the Tribunal concluded that there was no cause to proceed u/s Section 74(3) of the Code against the Appellant. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the forfeiture as per Resolution Plan and CIRP Regulations.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, addressed the issue of forfeiture of INR 10 Crores by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) led by State Bank of India (SBI) and the alleged restraint by CoC. The Tribunal held that the forfeiture was lawful u/s Resolution Plan terms. The Appellant's failure to provide valid bank guarantees and meet financial commitments justified the forfeiture. The CoC's actions were deemed appropriate, and the Appellant's contentions were rejected. The Tribunal also found the Appellant's contradictory stance on the nature of the deposit. Referring to IBBI, the Tribunal concluded that there was no cause to proceed u/s Section 74(3) of the Code against the Appellant. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the forfeiture as per Resolution Plan and CIRP Regulations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
