Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, held that the rejection of the Resolution Plan application by the Resolution Professional (RP) was improper due to non-compliance with Section 30(2)(b) and Section 30 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Adjudicating Authority can only reject a Resolution Plan if it violates Section 30(2) with proper reasons and material. The lack of specific reasons for non-compliance in the impugned order led to setting aside the decision. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to reconsider the application, allowing the RP to submit missing Minutes and Documents within two weeks to avoid further delays. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and compliance with legal requirements.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, held that the rejection of the Resolution Plan application by the Resolution Professional (RP) was improper due to non-compliance with Section 30(2)(b) and Section 30 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Adjudicating Authority can only reject a Resolution Plan if it violates Section 30(2) with proper reasons and material. The lack of specific reasons for non-compliance in the impugned order led to setting aside the decision. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to reconsider the application, allowing the RP to submit missing Minutes and Documents within two weeks to avoid further delays. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and compliance with legal requirements.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
