Minimum alternate tax exclusions for pre-amendment banking companies and expatriate Indian branch salaries remain outside head office expenditure limi...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1201 to 1220 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the rejection of the Appellant's claim by the Resolution Professional (RP) due to delay. The Committee of Creditors (CoC) had approved the resolution plan on 18.10.2021, while the Appellant filed the claim on 19.03.2022, much after the approval. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s RPS Infra, which held that once the CoC approves the plan, no claim can be entertained, even if the Adjudicating Authority has not yet approved the plan. The Appellant's reliance on the Puneet Kaur case was rendered ineffective by the subsequent M/s RPS Infra judgment. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal found no error in rejecting the Appellant's belated claim after the CoC's approval of the resolution plan.
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the rejection of the Appellant's claim by the Resolution Professional (RP) due to delay. The Committee of Creditors (CoC) had approved the resolution plan on 18.10.2021, while the Appellant filed the claim on 19.03.2022, much after the approval. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s RPS Infra, which held that once the CoC approves the plan, no claim can be entertained, even if the Adjudicating Authority has not yet approved the plan. The Appellant's reliance on the Puneet Kaur case was rendered ineffective by the subsequent M/s RPS Infra judgment. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal found no error in rejecting the Appellant's belated claim after the CoC's approval of the resolution plan.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
