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...
This appeal challenges the approval of a resolution plan by the adjudicating authority. The appellant contends that the resolution professional (RP) failed to disclose certain commercial spaces (4th to 9th floors) belonging to the corporate debtor. However, the NCLAT finds this submission incorrect based on the information memorandum and virtual data room shared with the appellant as a resolution applicant. The entire Westin Hotel, including the disputed floors assigned to another entity, belonged to the corporate debtor. The resolution plan was invited on an "as is where is basis," and all applicants were required to conduct due diligence. The appellant's failure to seek clarification cannot be attributed to the RP's non-disclosure. Therefore, the NCLAT dismisses the application challenging the approved resolution plan, finding no merit in the appellant's submissions.
This appeal challenges the approval of a resolution plan by the adjudicating authority. The appellant contends that the resolution professional (RP) failed to disclose certain commercial spaces (4th to 9th floors) belonging to the corporate debtor. However, the NCLAT finds this submission incorrect based on the information memorandum and virtual data room shared with the appellant as a resolution applicant. The entire Westin Hotel, including the disputed floors assigned to another entity, belonged to the corporate debtor. The resolution plan was invited on an "as is where is basis," and all applicants were required to conduct due diligence. The appellant's failure to seek clarification cannot be attributed to the RP's non-disclosure. Therefore, the NCLAT dismisses the application challenging the approved resolution plan, finding no merit in the appellant's submissions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
