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 ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Tribunal dismissed the application filed by companies holding units in the Corporate Debtor's project, seeking to intervene and proposing a scheme of compromise and arrangement u/s 230 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal held that there are no provisions in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) for intervention by a third party at the pre-admission stage. The Tribunal's role is limited to ascertaining the existence of financial debt and its default on an application filed u/s 7 of the IBC. The Financial Creditors had already opposed the issuance of notice in the Intervention Petitions and pressed for dismissal, arguing that the IBC does not allow intervention at the pre-admission stage. The Tribunal concluded that entertaining the application would severely impact and prejudice the rights of the individual allottees who filed the main company petition, leading to unnecessary delay in the proceedings.
The Tribunal dismissed the application filed by companies holding units in the Corporate Debtor's project, seeking to intervene and proposing a scheme of compromise and arrangement u/s 230 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal held that there are no provisions in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) for intervention by a third party at the pre-admission stage. The Tribunal's role is limited to ascertaining the existence of financial debt and its default on an application filed u/s 7 of the IBC. The Financial Creditors had already opposed the issuance of notice in the Intervention Petitions and pressed for dismissal, arguing that the IBC does not allow intervention at the pre-admission stage. The Tribunal concluded that entertaining the application would severely impact and prejudice the rights of the individual allottees who filed the main company petition, leading to unnecessary delay in the proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
