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 affirmed the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the Resolution Professional was lawfully entitled to take custody of share certificates and related documents of Subsidiary A and Subsidiary B as assets of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal held that under s.25(2)(a) and s.18(1)(f)(v) of the Code the RP must assume control of assets over which the Corporate Debtor retains ownership rights, even if held by third parties, and that the Appellant, having failed to prove payment of consideration or lawful entitlement, could not retain possession. The Adjudicating Authority possessed jurisdiction under ss.60(5), 63, 231 and 238 to grant the reliefs sought; appeal rejected.
NCLAT affirmed the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the Resolution Professional was lawfully entitled to take custody of share certificates and related documents of Subsidiary A and Subsidiary B as assets of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal held that under s.25(2)(a) and s.18(1)(f)(v) of the Code the RP must assume control of assets over which the Corporate Debtor retains ownership rights, even if held by third parties, and that the Appellant, having failed to prove payment of consideration or lawful entitlement, could not retain possession. The Adjudicating Authority possessed jurisdiction under ss.60(5), 63, 231 and 238 to grant the reliefs sought; appeal rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
