Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
The High Court examined the issue of liability to clear statutory dues post-insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. The resolution plan approved by NCLT provided for payment of Rs. 25 crores towards clearing all statutory dues, including claims by government authorities. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. case, the High Court held that on the date of approval of the resolution plan, all claims not part of the plan stand extinguished. Consequently, the petitioner's liability arising under the AP VAT Act or GST Act stands extinguished to the extent of its liability up to the date of approval of the resolution plan. The contention that NCLT's order is not binding due to Section 88 of the GST Act was rejected, as Section 238 of the IBC provides for a non-obstante clause overriding other laws. The High Court allowed the petitions, setting aside the demand-cum-adjudication orders issued by the tax authorities.
The High Court examined the issue of liability to clear statutory dues post-insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. The resolution plan approved by NCLT provided for payment of Rs. 25 crores towards clearing all statutory dues, including claims by government authorities. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. case, the High Court held that on the date of approval of the resolution plan, all claims not part of the plan stand extinguished. Consequently, the petitioner's liability arising under the AP VAT Act or GST Act stands extinguished to the extent of its liability up to the date of approval of the resolution plan. The contention that NCLT's order is not binding due to Section 88 of the GST Act was rejected, as Section 238 of the IBC provides for a non-obstante clause overriding other laws. The High Court allowed the petitions, setting aside the demand-cum-adjudication orders issued by the tax authorities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
