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 held that the suspended board of directors of the CD has a statutory right under the Code and CIRP Regulations to participate in CoC meetings and to receive resolution plans in advance. In this case, although notice for the 20th CoC meeting was issued, the RP and CoC wrongly required the appellant's representative to leave mid-meeting for "confidential" discussions, despite his earlier participation in prior meetings, and refused documents for want of a confidentiality undertaking. NCLAT found this procedure violative of governing principles and casting doubt on the fairness of the 20th CoC meeting, particularly as two PRAs were declared ineligible and only one plan was voted upon. The impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority upholding the RP's conduct was quashed and the appeal was allowed, with consequential invalidation of the decisions taken in the 20th CoC meeting.
NCLAT held that the suspended board of directors of the CD has a statutory right under the Code and CIRP Regulations to participate in CoC meetings and to receive resolution plans in advance. In this case, although notice for the 20th CoC meeting was issued, the RP and CoC wrongly required the appellant's representative to leave mid-meeting for "confidential" discussions, despite his earlier participation in prior meetings, and refused documents for want of a confidentiality undertaking. NCLAT found this procedure violative of governing principles and casting doubt on the fairness of the 20th CoC meeting, particularly as two PRAs were declared ineligible and only one plan was voted upon. The impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority upholding the RP's conduct was quashed and the appeal was allowed, with consequential invalidation of the decisions taken in the 20th CoC meeting.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.