Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Employee conflict disclosures and investment restrictions expand with new recusal duties, post-employment limits, and compliance reporting requirement...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
