Co-operative society's mandatory reserve and share capital fixed deposits with banks-interest treated as business income under 80P(2)(a)(iii) deductio...
Income tax reassessment reopening after four years on investigation tip, without s.147 proviso disclosure failure, struck down as borrowed satisfactio...
The dominant issue was whether the RP wrongly classified the appellant's CIRP claim under disputed invoices as contingent and denied payment for alleged services/loss of generation. Applying s.18 IBC read with regs. 10, 13(1) and 14 of the CIRP Regulations, the NCLAT held the RP's function is limited to collating and verifying claims on the basis of available documents and does not extend to adjudicating the legality or validity of disputed claims. Since the invoices' legality and the corporate debtor's liability were sub judice before the Allahabad HC and liability was consistently disputed, the claim was contingent on that outcome; the appeal was dismissed.
The dominant issue was whether the RP wrongly classified the appellant's CIRP claim under disputed invoices as contingent and denied payment for alleged services/loss of generation. Applying s.18 IBC read with regs. 10, 13(1) and 14 of the CIRP Regulations, the NCLAT held the RP's function is limited to collating and verifying claims on the basis of available documents and does not extend to adjudicating the legality or validity of disputed claims. Since the invoices' legality and the corporate debtor's liability were sub judice before the Allahabad HC and liability was consistently disputed, the claim was contingent on that outcome; the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
