Tax appeal allowed: AO exceeded s.144C DRP mandate by introducing new findings and recharacterising non-resident receipts as permanent establishment i...
Anonymized petitioner gets partial relief: bank guarantee quashed, PVC-coated fabric released under reduced conditions while valuation proceedings con...
NCLAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order refusing to fix professional fees for the Appellant (formerly the IRP) for the interim stay period. The AT held that the High Court's order operating as a "stay of proceedings" effectively precluded any CIRP functions between 14.08.2023 and 18.03.2025, rendering activities undertaken by the IRP during that exclusionary period non-operative for CIRP purposes. There was no evidence of effective discharge of official duties in furtherance of CIRP that would satisfy quid pro quo for fee entitlement. Consequently, denial of fees for the 19-month stay period was justified and the appeal was dismissed.
NCLAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order refusing to fix professional fees for the Appellant (formerly the IRP) for the interim stay period. The AT held that the High Court's order operating as a "stay of proceedings" effectively precluded any CIRP functions between 14.08.2023 and 18.03.2025, rendering activities undertaken by the IRP during that exclusionary period non-operative for CIRP purposes. There was no evidence of effective discharge of official duties in furtherance of CIRP that would satisfy quid pro quo for fee entitlement. Consequently, denial of fees for the 19-month stay period was justified and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
