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...
NCLAT affirmed the approval of a resolution plan where unsecured dissenting financial creditors received Rs.1.5 Crore against their admitted claim of Rs.10.94 Crore, representing 13.44% vote share. The plan secured 86.67% CoC approval within the 330-day CIRP period. The Tribunal held that the payout complied with Section 30(2)(b) of IBC, rejecting appellant's contention regarding homebuyers receiving units without haircuts. The fact that Adjudicating Authority's approval came on 14.05.2024, after the CIRP period, was deemed immaterial since the plan was approved and filed within the statutory timeframe. The NCLAT emphasized its limited jurisdiction to interfere with resolution plans and dismissed the appeal, finding no violation of statutory requirements.
NCLAT affirmed the approval of a resolution plan where unsecured dissenting financial creditors received Rs.1.5 Crore against their admitted claim of Rs.10.94 Crore, representing 13.44% vote share. The plan secured 86.67% CoC approval within the 330-day CIRP period. The Tribunal held that the payout complied with Section 30(2)(b) of IBC, rejecting appellant's contention regarding homebuyers receiving units without haircuts. The fact that Adjudicating Authority's approval came on 14.05.2024, after the CIRP period, was deemed immaterial since the plan was approved and filed within the statutory timeframe. The NCLAT emphasized its limited jurisdiction to interfere with resolution plans and dismissed the appeal, finding no violation of statutory requirements.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
