Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
