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...
CESTAT dismissed the appeal filed by the corporate debtor seeking refund claims post-approval of resolution plan under IBC. The tribunal held that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31(1) of IBC, the original corporate debtor's identity ceases to exist, and it cannot pursue any litigation including refund claims. Relying on Supreme Court precedents in Ghanashyam Mishra and Swiss Ribbons, CESTAT ruled that allowing such claims would discourage bona fide successors and undermine IBC objectives. The tribunal emphasized that corporate debtor's status remains unchanged whether appeal concerns demand or refund - no litigation can be initiated or continued post-resolution plan approval. The appeal was found without merit and declared non-entertainable.
CESTAT dismissed the appeal filed by the corporate debtor seeking refund claims post-approval of resolution plan under IBC. The tribunal held that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31(1) of IBC, the original corporate debtor's identity ceases to exist, and it cannot pursue any litigation including refund claims. Relying on Supreme Court precedents in Ghanashyam Mishra and Swiss Ribbons, CESTAT ruled that allowing such claims would discourage bona fide successors and undermine IBC objectives. The tribunal emphasized that corporate debtor's status remains unchanged whether appeal concerns demand or refund - no litigation can be initiated or continued post-resolution plan approval. The appeal was found without merit and declared non-entertainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
