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 ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The NCLAT held that the erstwhile Resolution Professional (RP) acted in deference to the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), which is paramount. Although the Adjudicating Authority observed irregularities and non-compliance with the CIRP Regulations by the RP, the NCLAT modified the order to expunge those adverse remarks against the RP's performance and conduct. The RP had taken necessary steps envisaged under the IBC for conducting the CIRP, including preparing the Information Memorandum, inviting Expressions of Interest, appointing a Transaction Auditor, and filing applications u/ss 43 and 66. The CoC had approved the resolution plan with the requisite majority, exercising its commercial wisdom. Therefore, the RP cannot be blamed for breaching the IBC by acting on the CoC's decision. The rest of the Adjudicating Authority's order remained unchanged.
The NCLAT held that the erstwhile Resolution Professional (RP) acted in deference to the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), which is paramount. Although the Adjudicating Authority observed irregularities and non-compliance with the CIRP Regulations by the RP, the NCLAT modified the order to expunge those adverse remarks against the RP's performance and conduct. The RP had taken necessary steps envisaged under the IBC for conducting the CIRP, including preparing the Information Memorandum, inviting Expressions of Interest, appointing a Transaction Auditor, and filing applications u/ss 43 and 66. The CoC had approved the resolution plan with the requisite majority, exercising its commercial wisdom. Therefore, the RP cannot be blamed for breaching the IBC by acting on the CoC's decision. The rest of the Adjudicating Authority's order remained unchanged.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
