Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
