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...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
