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 upheld the decision of the adjudicating authority dismissing the appeal, confirming the CoC's discretion to permit submission and consideration of a revised resolution plan by a resolution applicant (R-3) even after voting on the appellant's plan had commenced but was not concluded. The CoC validly exercised its power under Clause 2.8.5(d) of the RFRP to evaluate and approve any compliant resolution plan, including the revised plan of R-3 offering a higher bid. The Tribunal found no illegality in the CoC's decision to consider both the appellant's and R-3's revised plans and to continue the voting process accordingly. The adjudicating authority's order dated 16.06.2025 was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed with no interference, reinforcing the CoC's exclusive authority in resolution plan approval within the CIRP framework.
The NCLAT upheld the decision of the adjudicating authority dismissing the appeal, confirming the CoC's discretion to permit submission and consideration of a revised resolution plan by a resolution applicant (R-3) even after voting on the appellant's plan had commenced but was not concluded. The CoC validly exercised its power under Clause 2.8.5(d) of the RFRP to evaluate and approve any compliant resolution plan, including the revised plan of R-3 offering a higher bid. The Tribunal found no illegality in the CoC's decision to consider both the appellant's and R-3's revised plans and to continue the voting process accordingly. The adjudicating authority's order dated 16.06.2025 was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed with no interference, reinforcing the CoC's exclusive authority in resolution plan approval within the CIRP framework.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
