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...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96587 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 affirmed the adjudicating authority's order admitting...
Adjudicating authority's order admitting CIRP affirmed; consolidation of interconnected companies' CIRPs allowed; RP must invoke Section 7 for joint CIRP
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The NCLAT affirmed the adjudicating authority's order admitting CIRP and dismissed the appeals. The Tribunal held that insolvency proceedings for a land-owning subsidiary may be initiated notwithstanding a pending CIRP of the developer/holding company, and reiterated that consolidation of CIRPs of interconnected companies managed by the same management is permissible to maximize asset value and protect homebuyers' interests. Inclusion of the land-owning entity in the consolidated CIRP was a condition precedent to joint CIRP. The RP of the developer was deemed obliged to raise the issue before the CoC and seek initiation under Section 7 to achieve consolidated CIRP. No illegality was found in the impugned order, which is therefore affirmed.
The NCLAT affirmed the adjudicating authority's order admitting CIRP and dismissed the appeals. The Tribunal held that insolvency proceedings for a land-owning subsidiary may be initiated notwithstanding a pending CIRP of the developer/holding company, and reiterated that consolidation of CIRPs of interconnected companies managed by the same management is permissible to maximize asset value and protect homebuyers' interests. Inclusion of the land-owning entity in the consolidated CIRP was a condition precedent to joint CIRP. The RP of the developer was deemed obliged to raise the issue before the CoC and seek initiation under Section 7 to achieve consolidated CIRP. No illegality was found in the impugned order, which is therefore affirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.