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...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the decision to exclude the Appellant and other unsecured Financial Creditors from the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The key issues were whether the Appellant qualified as a 'related party' and whether its claim as a financial creditor was valid. The Appellant's claim of Rs.195 crores was based on a Deed of Guarantee-cum-Indemnity executed by the Corporate Debtor. However, the Tribunal held that there can be 'financial debt' only when liability or obligation arises from a claim due from any person. Since the Appellant did not disburse the amount of Rs.195 crores to the principal borrower, its claim against the guarantor (Corporate Debtor) could not be admitted. The Tribunal emphasized the statutory requirement of financial statements evidencing the amounts drawn by the Corporate Debtor under a facility to prove the existence of debt. As the Adjudicating Authority had directed a transaction audit report, the parties were given liberty to file fresh applications based on the report's findings regarding the Appellant's status as a 'related party' or a Financial Creditor/secured creditor.
The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the decision to exclude the Appellant and other unsecured Financial Creditors from the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The key issues were whether the Appellant qualified as a 'related party' and whether its claim as a financial creditor was valid. The Appellant's claim of Rs.195 crores was based on a Deed of Guarantee-cum-Indemnity executed by the Corporate Debtor. However, the Tribunal held that there can be 'financial debt' only when liability or obligation arises from a claim due from any person. Since the Appellant did not disburse the amount of Rs.195 crores to the principal borrower, its claim against the guarantor (Corporate Debtor) could not be admitted. The Tribunal emphasized the statutory requirement of financial statements evidencing the amounts drawn by the Corporate Debtor under a facility to prove the existence of debt. As the Adjudicating Authority had directed a transaction audit report, the parties were given liberty to file fresh applications based on the report's findings regarding the Appellant's status as a 'related party' or a Financial Creditor/secured creditor.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
