Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The Committee of Creditors (CoC) does not have jurisdiction to substitute the successful resolution applicant (SRA) with another entity who was not part of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The CIRP Regulations mandate that only resolution plans from prospective resolution applicants (PRAs) in the final list can be considered. Substituting a non-PRA as the SRA is a breach of Regulation 39(1)(B). The CoC cannot modify an approved resolution plan by substituting the SRA. The Adjudicating Authority erred in approving the modified resolution plan with the substituted SRA. The order approving the plan is unsustainable. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order and directed the Resolution Professional to issue a fresh Form-G inviting resolution applicants and complete the CIRP within 90 days.
The Committee of Creditors (CoC) does not have jurisdiction to substitute the successful resolution applicant (SRA) with another entity who was not part of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The CIRP Regulations mandate that only resolution plans from prospective resolution applicants (PRAs) in the final list can be considered. Substituting a non-PRA as the SRA is a breach of Regulation 39(1)(B). The CoC cannot modify an approved resolution plan by substituting the SRA. The Adjudicating Authority erred in approving the modified resolution plan with the substituted SRA. The order approving the plan is unsustainable. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order and directed the Resolution Professional to issue a fresh Form-G inviting resolution applicants and complete the CIRP within 90 days.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
