Tariff classification determines GST schedule and rate; beverages in Schedule III attract the higher rate, tea extracts and syrups in Schedule I attra...
Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Dispute concerns whether a settlement resolution applicant (SRA) qualified as a related party and thus was ineligible to submit a resolution plan. The tribunal noted the alleged transaction rested on a non-binding term sheet and no definitive contract or allotment of shares occurred, meaning the factual elements underpinning related party attribution were absent, yet the SRA was treated as a related party. The adjudicating authority previously considered and rejected the ineligibility challenge, rendering that determination final and permitting approval of the resolution plan; accordingly the appellate challenge to that approval was dismissed.
Dispute concerns whether a settlement resolution applicant (SRA) qualified as a related party and thus was ineligible to submit a resolution plan. The tribunal noted the alleged transaction rested on a non-binding term sheet and no definitive contract or allotment of shares occurred, meaning the factual elements underpinning related party attribution were absent, yet the SRA was treated as a related party. The adjudicating authority previously considered and rejected the ineligibility challenge, rendering that determination final and permitting approval of the resolution plan; accordingly the appellate challenge to that approval was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.