Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging a resolution plan approval, affirming that once all resolution applicants had submitted their final plans by the deadline, no further financial enhancements could be permitted. The appellant's plan was properly deliberated by the CoC and rejected in favor of another plan that received 98% approval. The Tribunal emphasized that commercial wisdom of the CoC holds paramount status with minimal scope for judicial intervention, as established in K. Sashidhar vs. Indian Overseas Bank. The NCLAT noted that Regulation 39(1A) of CIRP Regulations is merely enabling and does not mandate modification of plans. Since all applicants had equal opportunity to submit revised plans within the allowed timeframe, no grounds existed to interfere with the impugned order.
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging a resolution plan approval, affirming that once all resolution applicants had submitted their final plans by the deadline, no further financial enhancements could be permitted. The appellant's plan was properly deliberated by the CoC and rejected in favor of another plan that received 98% approval. The Tribunal emphasized that commercial wisdom of the CoC holds paramount status with minimal scope for judicial intervention, as established in K. Sashidhar vs. Indian Overseas Bank. The NCLAT noted that Regulation 39(1A) of CIRP Regulations is merely enabling and does not mandate modification of plans. Since all applicants had equal opportunity to submit revised plans within the allowed timeframe, no grounds existed to interfere with the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
