Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The Noida authority had terminated the lease deed of the subject land prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor. Despite this, the suspended management wrongfully included the subject plot in the resolution plan, claiming the lease was still subsisting. The Adjudicating Authority correctly held that since the lease was cancelled before CIRP initiation, the Corporate Debtor had lost possession rights, and the moratorium u/s 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) would not apply. The Resolution Professional (RP) should not have treated the cancelled plot as an asset and included it in the resolution plan without proper verification. The RP's actions, including preparing the Information Memorandum and obtaining Committee of Creditors' approval for the resolution plan containing the cancelled plot, were inappropriate. The RP failed to play a pivotal role in ensuring transparency and accountability during CIRP. The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the Adjudicating Authority's findings regarding the RP's unbecoming and unfair conduct, dismissing the appeal.
The Noida authority had terminated the lease deed of the subject land prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor. Despite this, the suspended management wrongfully included the subject plot in the resolution plan, claiming the lease was still subsisting. The Adjudicating Authority correctly held that since the lease was cancelled before CIRP initiation, the Corporate Debtor had lost possession rights, and the moratorium u/s 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) would not apply. The Resolution Professional (RP) should not have treated the cancelled plot as an asset and included it in the resolution plan without proper verification. The RP's actions, including preparing the Information Memorandum and obtaining Committee of Creditors' approval for the resolution plan containing the cancelled plot, were inappropriate. The RP failed to play a pivotal role in ensuring transparency and accountability during CIRP. The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the Adjudicating Authority's findings regarding the RP's unbecoming and unfair conduct, dismissing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
