Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1481 to 1500 of 96333 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 amount of Rs. 1 crore lying in the "No Lien Account" with the Appellant bank belongs to the Corporate Debtor and is an asset of the Corporate Debtor. Once the CIRP was initiated, the IRP/RP was obliged to take control/custody of this amount as per Section 18 of the IBC, 2016. Since the moratorium had commenced upon initiation of CIRP, the bank could not have appropriated this money. Following a previous judgment, the NCLAT found that the Adjudicating Authority rightly held that the said amount is an asset of the Corporate Debtor, and the IRP/RP has rightly claimed the said deposit for utilization in CIRP. Consequently, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal.
The NCLAT held that the amount of Rs. 1 crore lying in the "No Lien Account" with the Appellant bank belongs to the Corporate Debtor and is an asset of the Corporate Debtor. Once the CIRP was initiated, the IRP/RP was obliged to take control/custody of this amount as per Section 18 of the IBC, 2016. Since the moratorium had commenced upon initiation of CIRP, the bank could not have appropriated this money. Following a previous judgment, the NCLAT found that the Adjudicating Authority rightly held that the said amount is an asset of the Corporate Debtor, and the IRP/RP has rightly claimed the said deposit for utilization in CIRP. Consequently, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
