Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The court upheld the approval of the resolution plan, rejecting the wrongful allocation of Rs. 79 lakhs as the liquidation value. The Supreme Court's decision in Amit Metaliks Limited, considering Sections 30(4)(2) and 53, held that the NCLAT rightly observed that the amendment to Section 30(4) amplified the CoC's considerations for exercising commercial wisdom regarding the viability and feasibility of the resolution plan, ensuring fair distribution among similarly situated creditors. The court relied on Amit Metaliks and Paridhi Finvest Pvt. Ltd., where the dissenting financial creditor's claim for the liquidation value payment was rejected. Despite the pending larger bench interpretation of Section 30(2)(b)(ii), the Supreme Court's decision in Amit Metaliks is subsisting, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
The court upheld the approval of the resolution plan, rejecting the wrongful allocation of Rs. 79 lakhs as the liquidation value. The Supreme Court's decision in Amit Metaliks Limited, considering Sections 30(4)(2) and 53, held that the NCLAT rightly observed that the amendment to Section 30(4) amplified the CoC's considerations for exercising commercial wisdom regarding the viability and feasibility of the resolution plan, ensuring fair distribution among similarly situated creditors. The court relied on Amit Metaliks and Paridhi Finvest Pvt. Ltd., where the dissenting financial creditor's claim for the liquidation value payment was rejected. Despite the pending larger bench interpretation of Section 30(2)(b)(ii), the Supreme Court's decision in Amit Metaliks is subsisting, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
