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...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
NCLAT dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, holding that it lacked locus standi to challenge the resolution plan approved by the CoC and pending consideration before NCLT. The Tribunal held that CIRP, though a proceeding in rem, does not permit participation by entities whose procedural relevance has ceased, as in the case of the appellant which failed to submit a resolution plan within the prescribed time. The appellant, being neither a creditor nor a resolution applicant with a subsisting procedural status, could not assail the eligibility of the successful resolution applicant under Section 29A IBC. NCLAT left the issue of Section 29A disqualification to be examined by NCLT under Section 31 IBC and imposed costs of Rs. 15 lakhs on the appellant for obstructing the resolution process.
NCLAT dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, holding that it lacked locus standi to challenge the resolution plan approved by the CoC and pending consideration before NCLT. The Tribunal held that CIRP, though a proceeding in rem, does not permit participation by entities whose procedural relevance has ceased, as in the case of the appellant which failed to submit a resolution plan within the prescribed time. The appellant, being neither a creditor nor a resolution applicant with a subsisting procedural status, could not assail the eligibility of the successful resolution applicant under Section 29A IBC. NCLAT left the issue of Section 29A disqualification to be examined by NCLT under Section 31 IBC and imposed costs of Rs. 15 lakhs on the appellant for obstructing the resolution process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
