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 NCLAT rejected the intervention application filed by the Appellant for approval of the Resolution Plan u/s 30 of the I&B Code. The Appellant was an unsuccessful Resolution Applicant and lacked locus standi to become a party to the proceedings. The NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority has the prerogative to determine whether the approved Resolution Plan by the COC falls within the parameters prescribed in Section 30(2), and the Appellant has no right to ensure its compliance. The NCLAT allowed the impleadment of M/s Lulu International Shopping Malls Private Limited, whose Resolution Plan was approved. Since the Appellant's Intervention Application was rejected and its Resolution Plan was rejected without challenge, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the Appellant has no locus standi to intervene or challenge the approval of the Resolution Plan granted to M/s Lulu International Shopping Malls Private Limited.
The NCLAT rejected the intervention application filed by the Appellant for approval of the Resolution Plan u/s 30 of the I&B Code. The Appellant was an unsuccessful Resolution Applicant and lacked locus standi to become a party to the proceedings. The NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority has the prerogative to determine whether the approved Resolution Plan by the COC falls within the parameters prescribed in Section 30(2), and the Appellant has no right to ensure its compliance. The NCLAT allowed the impleadment of M/s Lulu International Shopping Malls Private Limited, whose Resolution Plan was approved. Since the Appellant's Intervention Application was rejected and its Resolution Plan was rejected without challenge, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the Appellant has no locus standi to intervene or challenge the approval of the Resolution Plan granted to M/s Lulu International Shopping Malls Private Limited.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
