Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
