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...
Challenge to an approved Resolution Plan where no consideration was given to payment to an Operational Creditor. The key points are: Section 30(2)(b) mandates that payment to Operational Creditors shall not be less than the amount payable in case of liquidation u/s 53. The Supreme Court in Essar Steel case held that the CoC's commercial wisdom in approving a Resolution Plan cannot be interfered with as long as Code provisions are met. The Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction is circumscribed by Section 30(2). In the present case, notionally computing the amount payable to the Operational Creditor in liquidation results in nil, as the sole Financial Creditor itself cannot receive its full amount. The approved Resolution Plan proposes payment to the Financial Creditor and CIRP costs, complying with Section 30(2)(b). Though non-payment to Operational Creditors is harsh, courts are bound by the current law until the legislature amends it. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order approving the Resolution Plan.
Challenge to an approved Resolution Plan where no consideration was given to payment to an Operational Creditor. The key points are: Section 30(2)(b) mandates that payment to Operational Creditors shall not be less than the amount payable in case of liquidation u/s 53. The Supreme Court in Essar Steel case held that the CoC's commercial wisdom in approving a Resolution Plan cannot be interfered with as long as Code provisions are met. The Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction is circumscribed by Section 30(2). In the present case, notionally computing the amount payable to the Operational Creditor in liquidation results in nil, as the sole Financial Creditor itself cannot receive its full amount. The approved Resolution Plan proposes payment to the Financial Creditor and CIRP costs, complying with Section 30(2)(b). Though non-payment to Operational Creditors is harsh, courts are bound by the current law until the legislature amends it. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order approving the Resolution Plan.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
