Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority's order directing liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, dismissing the appeal. It reaffirmed that under Section 30(4) of the IBC, post-amendment, approval of a resolution plan requires not less than 66% of the voting share of all Financial Creditors, inclusive of those voting for, against, or abstaining. The Tribunal clarified that the percentage cannot be computed solely based on votes cast at the meeting or presence of particular creditors, as the statutory language mandates calculation based on the entire voting share of Financial Creditors. The omission of Regulation 2(1)(f) was held inconsequential to this interpretation. The decision aligns with the Supreme Court's interpretation that CIRP Regulations must be read in harmony with Section 30(4). The delay in adjudication did not vitiate the liquidation order, and the appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority's order directing liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, dismissing the appeal. It reaffirmed that under Section 30(4) of the IBC, post-amendment, approval of a resolution plan requires not less than 66% of the voting share of all Financial Creditors, inclusive of those voting for, against, or abstaining. The Tribunal clarified that the percentage cannot be computed solely based on votes cast at the meeting or presence of particular creditors, as the statutory language mandates calculation based on the entire voting share of Financial Creditors. The omission of Regulation 2(1)(f) was held inconsequential to this interpretation. The decision aligns with the Supreme Court's interpretation that CIRP Regulations must be read in harmony with Section 30(4). The delay in adjudication did not vitiate the liquidation order, and the appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.