Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 of 96092 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 found the Interim Resolution Professional's (IRP) conduct to be biased, premeditated, and authoritarian, violating the core objectives and principles of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The IRP prematurely admitted the claim of a creditor and reconstituted the Committee of Creditors (CoC) after being voted out, enabling the new creditor to appoint him as the Resolution Professional (RP). This collusive practice compromised the integrity and transparency of the insolvency resolution process. The Tribunal held that such conduct goes against the objectives of the IBC and could enable erstwhile promoters' re-entry into the corporate debtor. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the need for neutrality and impartiality in CIRP proceedings to uphold the IBC's principles.
The Appellate Tribunal found the Interim Resolution Professional's (IRP) conduct to be biased, premeditated, and authoritarian, violating the core objectives and principles of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The IRP prematurely admitted the claim of a creditor and reconstituted the Committee of Creditors (CoC) after being voted out, enabling the new creditor to appoint him as the Resolution Professional (RP). This collusive practice compromised the integrity and transparency of the insolvency resolution process. The Tribunal held that such conduct goes against the objectives of the IBC and could enable erstwhile promoters' re-entry into the corporate debtor. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the need for neutrality and impartiality in CIRP proceedings to uphold the IBC's principles.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
