Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has remanded the case back to the Adjudicating Authority (AA) to examine and decide the issues in a comprehensive manner, including the application of the appellant in I.A. No. 1412 of 2023, preferably within four weeks. The NCLAT held that there is an absolute bar on recovery of any property occupied or possessed by the Corporate Debtor u/s 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The AA had passed a non-speaking order merely based on the consent of the Resolution Professional (RP) to release the property, without examining the maintainability of such applications by the owner/lessor in view of Section 14(1)(d). The Committee of Creditors (CoC) did not appear to have taken a final decision with proper voting regarding the vacation of the registered office. The RP's decision to release the property was his own and not confirmed by the CoC. The NCLAT found that the AA should have first examined whether it is possible to allow such applications in view of the express provisions of Section 14(1)(d), even if supported by the CoC. The appeal was allowed.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has remanded the case back to the Adjudicating Authority (AA) to examine and decide the issues in a comprehensive manner, including the application of the appellant in I.A. No. 1412 of 2023, preferably within four weeks. The NCLAT held that there is an absolute bar on recovery of any property occupied or possessed by the Corporate Debtor u/s 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The AA had passed a non-speaking order merely based on the consent of the Resolution Professional (RP) to release the property, without examining the maintainability of such applications by the owner/lessor in view of Section 14(1)(d). The Committee of Creditors (CoC) did not appear to have taken a final decision with proper voting regarding the vacation of the registered office. The RP's decision to release the property was his own and not confirmed by the CoC. The NCLAT found that the AA should have first examined whether it is possible to allow such applications in view of the express provisions of Section 14(1)(d), even if supported by the CoC. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
