Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NCLAT examined allegations of collusion between CoC, RP and an entrant in condoning delay in submission of EoI and alleged concealment from other PRAs, claimed as material irregularity under the CIRP Regulations. NCLAT held that not every procedural breach under the Regulations constitutes "material irregularity"; the test is whether the deviation results in an outcome that is plainly illegal or so unfair as to undermine the integrity of the CIRP. Treating the Regulations as facilitative, the Tribunal found that the alleged violations, even if assumed, did not attain the threshold of material irregularity warranting invalidation of the resolution process. Accordingly, NCLAT set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority and allowed the appeal, upholding the challenged resolution approval.
NCLAT examined allegations of collusion between CoC, RP and an entrant in condoning delay in submission of EoI and alleged concealment from other PRAs, claimed as material irregularity under the CIRP Regulations. NCLAT held that not every procedural breach under the Regulations constitutes "material irregularity"; the test is whether the deviation results in an outcome that is plainly illegal or so unfair as to undermine the integrity of the CIRP. Treating the Regulations as facilitative, the Tribunal found that the alleged violations, even if assumed, did not attain the threshold of material irregularity warranting invalidation of the resolution process. Accordingly, NCLAT set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority and allowed the appeal, upholding the challenged resolution approval.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
