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...
In this NCLAT decision, the Tribunal clarified that although it had stayed "further steps" to be taken by the IRP in its earlier order dated 07.12.2023, this did not terminate the CIRP or restore management to the suspended Board of Directors. The Tribunal held that once CIRP was initiated and the IRP appointed on 04.12.2023, management of the Corporate Debtor vested with the IRP by operation of Section 17 of IBC. Despite the stay preventing the IRP from taking procedural steps like inviting claims or constituting the Committee of Creditors, the legal fiction created by IBC means the IRP retains control over the Corporate Debtor's assets. The suspended Board cannot resume control, as the stay order did not revert to status quo ante or quash the CIRP initiation.
In this NCLAT decision, the Tribunal clarified that although it had stayed "further steps" to be taken by the IRP in its earlier order dated 07.12.2023, this did not terminate the CIRP or restore management to the suspended Board of Directors. The Tribunal held that once CIRP was initiated and the IRP appointed on 04.12.2023, management of the Corporate Debtor vested with the IRP by operation of Section 17 of IBC. Despite the stay preventing the IRP from taking procedural steps like inviting claims or constituting the Committee of Creditors, the legal fiction created by IBC means the IRP retains control over the Corporate Debtor's assets. The suspended Board cannot resume control, as the stay order did not revert to status quo ante or quash the CIRP initiation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
