Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
