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 upheld the impugned order, holding that the eligibility criteria under s.29A IBC, as incorporated in the RFRP, had to be satisfied by the resolution applicant at three stages: submission of the resolution plan, its consideration by the CoC, and approval by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant, a CoC member, had accepted these terms without objection. Since the successful resolution applicant had been declared a wilful defaulter prior to submission of the revised plan, it was ineligible under s.29A on the filing date, rendering the plan non-compliant with s.30(2) and related regulations. NCLAT agreed that a fresh plan could be considered by the CoC with other eligible plans and found no infirmity in the Adjudicating Authority's order, dismissing the appeals as meritless.
NCLAT upheld the impugned order, holding that the eligibility criteria under s.29A IBC, as incorporated in the RFRP, had to be satisfied by the resolution applicant at three stages: submission of the resolution plan, its consideration by the CoC, and approval by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant, a CoC member, had accepted these terms without objection. Since the successful resolution applicant had been declared a wilful defaulter prior to submission of the revised plan, it was ineligible under s.29A on the filing date, rendering the plan non-compliant with s.30(2) and related regulations. NCLAT agreed that a fresh plan could be considered by the CoC with other eligible plans and found no infirmity in the Adjudicating Authority's order, dismissing the appeals as meritless.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.