Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Section 7 application filed by the Appellant, ruling that the share application money deposited by the Appellant with the Corporate Debtor did not constitute a 'financial debt' u/s 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The key points are: 1) For a debt to qualify as 'financial debt', there must be a disbursal against consideration for time value of money, and the transaction must fall within the ambit of sub-clauses (a) to (i) of Section 5(8). 2) Share application money is not expressly covered u/s 5(8). 3) The Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 apply only if the share application money was received pursuant to a private placement offer made in accordance with the Companies Act, 2013. 4) In the present case, there was no evidence of a valid concluded agreement between the parties regarding allotment of shares, nor any proof of a private placement offer made as per the Companies Act. 5) Therefore, the share application money advanced by the Appellant could not be treated as a deposit under the Rules, and consequently, did not qualify as a 'financial debt' under the IBC. The Appellate Tribunal found no infirmity in the Adjudicating Authority's order rejecting.
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Section 7 application filed by the Appellant, ruling that the share application money deposited by the Appellant with the Corporate Debtor did not constitute a 'financial debt' u/s 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The key points are: 1) For a debt to qualify as 'financial debt', there must be a disbursal against consideration for time value of money, and the transaction must fall within the ambit of sub-clauses (a) to (i) of Section 5(8). 2) Share application money is not expressly covered u/s 5(8). 3) The Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 apply only if the share application money was received pursuant to a private placement offer made in accordance with the Companies Act, 2013. 4) In the present case, there was no evidence of a valid concluded agreement between the parties regarding allotment of shares, nor any proof of a private placement offer made as per the Companies Act. 5) Therefore, the share application money advanced by the Appellant could not be treated as a deposit under the Rules, and consequently, did not qualify as a 'financial debt' under the IBC. The Appellate Tribunal found no infirmity in the Adjudicating Authority's order rejecting.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
