Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging the quashing of the e-auction conducted on 31.01.2024 for the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern and the rejection of the appellant's proposed Scheme of Arrangement u/s 230 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal held that with the enactment of the IBC, the significance of Section 230(1) in addressing insolvency has diminished. The follow-up process u/s 230(1) is necessary only when the Liquidator fails to sustain the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. Regulation 32A mandates the Liquidator to prioritize selling the Corporate Debtor as a going concern to maximize value. Minor discrepancies during the bid process were deemed inconsequential as the Successful Bidder is operating the Corporate Debtor as a going concern, fulfilling the IBC's objective. The appeal lacked merits and was dismissed.
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging the quashing of the e-auction conducted on 31.01.2024 for the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern and the rejection of the appellant's proposed Scheme of Arrangement u/s 230 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal held that with the enactment of the IBC, the significance of Section 230(1) in addressing insolvency has diminished. The follow-up process u/s 230(1) is necessary only when the Liquidator fails to sustain the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. Regulation 32A mandates the Liquidator to prioritize selling the Corporate Debtor as a going concern to maximize value. Minor discrepancies during the bid process were deemed inconsequential as the Successful Bidder is operating the Corporate Debtor as a going concern, fulfilling the IBC's objective. The appeal lacked merits and was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
