Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 14.05.2024, holding that the withdrawal of the CIRP was vitiated by material misrepresentation and suppression of facts. The Tribunal found the IRP failed to give effective public notice and to include a class of homebuyers as financial creditors, resulting in an incomplete CoC and selective settlement by the ex-management. The IRP's false assertion that no CoC existed enabled withdrawal without the statutory 90% approval under Section 12A, amounting to fraud on the adjudicating authority. Given prima facie proof of fraud and the prejudice to omitted creditors, recall of the withdrawal order was warranted and the appeal was allowed.
NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 14.05.2024, holding that the withdrawal of the CIRP was vitiated by material misrepresentation and suppression of facts. The Tribunal found the IRP failed to give effective public notice and to include a class of homebuyers as financial creditors, resulting in an incomplete CoC and selective settlement by the ex-management. The IRP's false assertion that no CoC existed enabled withdrawal without the statutory 90% approval under Section 12A, amounting to fraud on the adjudicating authority. Given prima facie proof of fraud and the prejudice to omitted creditors, recall of the withdrawal order was warranted and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
