Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Insolvency and BankruptcySeptember 6, 2024Case LawsAT
Appellants filed claims after the cut-off date for submission of claims in the insolvency resolution process. The approved resolution plan kept such delayed claims alive for six months, requiring the successful resolution applicant (SRA) to address them as per clause 18.4(v). The Adjudicating Authority correctly rejected the appellants' application, observing that their delayed claims must be considered and settled by the SRA in line with clause 18.4(v), which binds all stakeholders, including the appellants and the SRA. The appellate tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order and disposed of the appeal.
Appellants filed claims after the cut-off date for submission of claims in the insolvency resolution process. The approved resolution plan kept such delayed claims alive for six months, requiring the successful resolution applicant (SRA) to address them as per clause 18.4(v). The Adjudicating Authority correctly rejected the appellants' application, observing that their delayed claims must be considered and settled by the SRA in line with clause 18.4(v), which binds all stakeholders, including the appellants and the SRA. The appellate tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order and disposed of the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
