Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1321 to 1340 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 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
