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 determined that dissenting financial creditors are entitled to a pro-rata share of the resolution value rather than merely the liquidation value when the resolution value exceeds liquidation value. The tribunal ruled this approach is "fair and equitable" under Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the I&B Code. The appellant (RBL Bank) was awarded Rs. 42.09 Crores, with all dissenting FCs to receive proportionate shares of the resolution plan value. Regarding payment priority, the NCLAT held that dissenting creditors must be paid first, but on a pro-rata basis when payments come in installments. The tribunal ordered Respondent No. 1 to remit the determined amount to the Resolution Professional by March 31, 2025, for distribution among financial creditors as detailed in the plan.
The NCLAT determined that dissenting financial creditors are entitled to a pro-rata share of the resolution value rather than merely the liquidation value when the resolution value exceeds liquidation value. The tribunal ruled this approach is "fair and equitable" under Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the I&B Code. The appellant (RBL Bank) was awarded Rs. 42.09 Crores, with all dissenting FCs to receive proportionate shares of the resolution plan value. Regarding payment priority, the NCLAT held that dissenting creditors must be paid first, but on a pro-rata basis when payments come in installments. The tribunal ordered Respondent No. 1 to remit the determined amount to the Resolution Professional by March 31, 2025, for distribution among financial creditors as detailed in the plan.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
