Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95673 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellants, who were allottees seeking equitable treatment with other creditors in the same class, amendment of the Information Memorandum (IM) reflecting their units as cancelled, and refund of the amount paid. The key points are: The Resolution Professional (RP) lacks adjudicatory powers on claims filed before them and could not have reversed the cancellation action taken by the Corporate Debtor prior to the CIRP initiation. The Resolution Plan, approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with 100% majority, provided treatment to the cancelled allottees, complying with Section 30 of the Code. The Appellants had approached UPRERA and accepted partial refunds from the erstwhile management, indicating acceptance of cancellation. The Appellants did not challenge the pre-CIRP cancellation and misrepresented their claims. The CoC and RP could not revoke the cancellation as it was beyond their jurisdiction. The cancellation was based on an unchallenged UPRERA order, and the CoC acted within its commercial wisdom in approving the Resolution Plan. The Appellate Tribunal found no fault in the due process followed by the Adjudicating Authority.
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellants, who were allottees seeking equitable treatment with other creditors in the same class, amendment of the Information Memorandum (IM) reflecting their units as cancelled, and refund of the amount paid. The key points are: The Resolution Professional (RP) lacks adjudicatory powers on claims filed before them and could not have reversed the cancellation action taken by the Corporate Debtor prior to the CIRP initiation. The Resolution Plan, approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with 100% majority, provided treatment to the cancelled allottees, complying with Section 30 of the Code. The Appellants had approached UPRERA and accepted partial refunds from the erstwhile management, indicating acceptance of cancellation. The Appellants did not challenge the pre-CIRP cancellation and misrepresented their claims. The CoC and RP could not revoke the cancellation as it was beyond their jurisdiction. The cancellation was based on an unchallenged UPRERA order, and the CoC acted within its commercial wisdom in approving the Resolution Plan. The Appellate Tribunal found no fault in the due process followed by the Adjudicating Authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
