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 Appellate Tribunal ruled that the Resolution Professional (RP) was entitled to possess the land admeasuring 10.81 acres, where the corporate debtor had constructed the Canary Greens project. The development agreement envisaged 50% shares to the owners and 50% shares (10.81 acres) to the developer. The corporate debtor, having obtained development rights through agreements, was in possession of the project land. The definition of 'property' under the IBC includes development rights, as clarified by the Supreme Court. The Adjudicating Authority erred in observing that the RP could not prove physical possession, as sufficient evidence established the corporate debtor's possession. The Appellate Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority was competent to decide the possession issue without relegating it to a civil court. Excluding the 10.81 acres from the corporate insolvency resolution process, as sought by the owners, was not warranted.
The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the Resolution Professional (RP) was entitled to possess the land admeasuring 10.81 acres, where the corporate debtor had constructed the Canary Greens project. The development agreement envisaged 50% shares to the owners and 50% shares (10.81 acres) to the developer. The corporate debtor, having obtained development rights through agreements, was in possession of the project land. The definition of 'property' under the IBC includes development rights, as clarified by the Supreme Court. The Adjudicating Authority erred in observing that the RP could not prove physical possession, as sufficient evidence established the corporate debtor's possession. The Appellate Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority was competent to decide the possession issue without relegating it to a civil court. Excluding the 10.81 acres from the corporate insolvency resolution process, as sought by the owners, was not warranted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
