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 Appellant, a related party unsecured financial creditor, challenged the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the Adjudicating Authority, claiming discrimination against other financial creditors. The court held that the Appellant was aware of being treated as a related party and removed from the CoC, but never challenged this treatment during the insolvency proceedings. Among financial creditors, only secured non-related creditors are being paid, while the Appellant, an unsecured related party creditor, is not entitled to payment under the IBC. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in M.K. Rajagopalan, the court ruled that the CoC and Adjudicating Authority rightly differentiated between related and non-related parties, and there was no infirmity in the approved resolution plan. Consequently, the Appellant's appeal was dismissed.
The Appellant, a related party unsecured financial creditor, challenged the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the Adjudicating Authority, claiming discrimination against other financial creditors. The court held that the Appellant was aware of being treated as a related party and removed from the CoC, but never challenged this treatment during the insolvency proceedings. Among financial creditors, only secured non-related creditors are being paid, while the Appellant, an unsecured related party creditor, is not entitled to payment under the IBC. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in M.K. Rajagopalan, the court ruled that the CoC and Adjudicating Authority rightly differentiated between related and non-related parties, and there was no infirmity in the approved resolution plan. Consequently, the Appellant's appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
