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...
The appeals challenged the approval of Sarda Energy and Minerals Ltd.'s Resolution Plan, alleging material irregularities by the Resolution Professional (RP) and Committee of Creditors (CoC). The key issues were the alleged modification of key commercial terms by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) under the guise of clarifications sought by the RP, and the resulting perversity and discrimination. The NCLAT held that the CoC and RP did not grant any opportunity to the appellant to modify or amend the Resolution Plan's terms. While the Supreme Court in Ajay Gupta's case allowed modification, in the present case, the clarifications sought on 08.05.2023 did not permit any Resolution Applicant to modify their plans; only clarifications were requested. The appellant's contention that Sarda was permitted to modify its financial proposals under the guise of clarifications was rejected. No sufficient grounds were established u/s 61(3)(ii) of the IBC to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's approval of Sarda's Resolution Plan. Consequently, the appeals by the Unsuccessful Resolution Applicants were dismissed.
The appeals challenged the approval of Sarda Energy and Minerals Ltd.'s Resolution Plan, alleging material irregularities by the Resolution Professional (RP) and Committee of Creditors (CoC). The key issues were the alleged modification of key commercial terms by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) under the guise of clarifications sought by the RP, and the resulting perversity and discrimination. The NCLAT held that the CoC and RP did not grant any opportunity to the appellant to modify or amend the Resolution Plan's terms. While the Supreme Court in Ajay Gupta's case allowed modification, in the present case, the clarifications sought on 08.05.2023 did not permit any Resolution Applicant to modify their plans; only clarifications were requested. The appellant's contention that Sarda was permitted to modify its financial proposals under the guise of clarifications was rejected. No sufficient grounds were established u/s 61(3)(ii) of the IBC to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's approval of Sarda's Resolution Plan. Consequently, the appeals by the Unsuccessful Resolution Applicants were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
