Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
481 to 500 of 95794 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The NCLAT held that suspension of authorisation for assignment (AFA) under Bye-Law 23A does not automatically debar a Resolution Professional (RP) from continuing with pending or existing assignments; it only prohibits the RP from accepting fresh assignments. The Tribunal found no majority opinion supporting the replacement of the RP and set aside the prior order directing such replacement. The statutory framework under the IBBI Regulations indicates that suspension as a penalty restricts new assignments but does not affect ongoing ones. Consequently, the directions for replacing the RP were quashed, and the Adjudicating Authority was permitted to proceed with the plan approval application. The appeal was allowed in part, clarifying the scope of suspension under Bye-Law 23A and protecting the RP's continuation on existing cases.
The NCLAT held that suspension of authorisation for assignment (AFA) under Bye-Law 23A does not automatically debar a Resolution Professional (RP) from continuing with pending or existing assignments; it only prohibits the RP from accepting fresh assignments. The Tribunal found no majority opinion supporting the replacement of the RP and set aside the prior order directing such replacement. The statutory framework under the IBBI Regulations indicates that suspension as a penalty restricts new assignments but does not affect ongoing ones. Consequently, the directions for replacing the RP were quashed, and the Adjudicating Authority was permitted to proceed with the plan approval application. The appeal was allowed in part, clarifying the scope of suspension under Bye-Law 23A and protecting the RP's continuation on existing cases.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
