Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
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 ...
Locus standi of the appellant to file an appeal against the admission of a Section 7 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the fulfillment of the threshold requirement for filing such an application. The key points are: The appellant, who is neither an allottee of the real estate project nor has any stake in it, lacks the locus standi to challenge the order admitting the Section 7 application. The application was filed by financial creditors in a class, alleging default by the corporate debtor in delivering possession of units within the agreed time. The application fulfilled the threshold requirement of being filed by at least 10% of the allottees, as it was filed by 29 out of 255 allottees. The Appellate Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.
Locus standi of the appellant to file an appeal against the admission of a Section 7 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the fulfillment of the threshold requirement for filing such an application. The key points are: The appellant, who is neither an allottee of the real estate project nor has any stake in it, lacks the locus standi to challenge the order admitting the Section 7 application. The application was filed by financial creditors in a class, alleging default by the corporate debtor in delivering possession of units within the agreed time. The application fulfilled the threshold requirement of being filed by at least 10% of the allottees, as it was filed by 29 out of 255 allottees. The Appellate Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
