Unverified Insight Portal Information Cannot Justify Reassessment Without a Verified Taxpayer-Specific Income-Escape Nexus or Demonstrated Application...
Assessing Officer jurisdiction after statutory transfer invalidates reassessment notices issued by transferor officers and nullifies resulting proceed...
Consequential appeal-effect orders must implement rectification deleting working-capital adjustments and reconsider the resulting arm's-length range c...
Discounted cash flow valuation protects share premium where projections are reasonable, while audited book expenses defeat unexplained-expenditure add...
Section 54 construction relief survives pre-transfer commencement when completion occurs within the statutory period, excluding ineligible spouse-owne...
The NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to determine whether the subject land is an asset of the corporate debtor, as such questions arise out of or relate to the insolvency resolution process. The proceedings conducted by the Sole Arbitrator and the orders passed did not amount to an arbitral award under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, and thus were not binding on the parties. The IRP/RP could rightly include the subject land in the Information Memorandum/CIRP process by virtue of Section 18(1)(f) explanation, as the corporate debtor claimed development rights over the land. The Adjudicating Authority did not err in allowing the intervention petition filed by Art Construction Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to determine whether the subject land is an asset of the corporate debtor, as such questions arise out of or relate to the insolvency resolution process. The proceedings conducted by the Sole Arbitrator and the orders passed did not amount to an arbitral award under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, and thus were not binding on the parties. The IRP/RP could rightly include the subject land in the Information Memorandum/CIRP process by virtue of Section 18(1)(f) explanation, as the corporate debtor claimed development rights over the land. The Adjudicating Authority did not err in allowing the intervention petition filed by Art Construction Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4886 
