Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
The Appellate Tribunal held that the Annual Mine Closure Cost (AMCC) deposited by the Corporate Debtor in an Escrow Account belongs to the Corporate Debtor and cannot be kept aside from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Escrow Agreement provided for the return of the entire AMCC amount to the Corporate Debtor after completing mine closure activities. Categorizing AMCC as a pre-CIRP due and allowing its recovery independently would contravene the moratorium u/s 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). AMCC should be considered a CIRP cost u/s 5(13) of the IBC for running the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority's direction to keep AMCC aside, as it would give the Respondents an undue preference over other creditors, defeating the purpose of CIRP. The appeal was allowed, modifying the impugned order.
The Appellate Tribunal held that the Annual Mine Closure Cost (AMCC) deposited by the Corporate Debtor in an Escrow Account belongs to the Corporate Debtor and cannot be kept aside from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Escrow Agreement provided for the return of the entire AMCC amount to the Corporate Debtor after completing mine closure activities. Categorizing AMCC as a pre-CIRP due and allowing its recovery independently would contravene the moratorium u/s 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). AMCC should be considered a CIRP cost u/s 5(13) of the IBC for running the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority's direction to keep AMCC aside, as it would give the Respondents an undue preference over other creditors, defeating the purpose of CIRP. The appeal was allowed, modifying the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
