Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Right of appeal under Section 61 is confined to a person whose legal rights are directly affected, and a collateral grievance from a separate CIRP does not confer locus standi. The appellant was not a stakeholder in the CIRP of Afcan Impex Pvt. Ltd., so it was not a person aggrieved. On merits, the Tribunal found no established ineligibility of the resolution applicant under Section 29A: mere association with another company in CIRP was insufficient, no NPA classification material was shown, and disqualification under Section 164 could not be presumed without a formal declaration. Fresh objections were also not entertained in appeal, and the implemented resolution plan was treated as final.
Right of appeal under Section 61 is confined to a person whose legal rights are directly affected, and a collateral grievance from a separate CIRP does not confer locus standi. The appellant was not a stakeholder in the CIRP of Afcan Impex Pvt. Ltd., so it was not a person aggrieved. On merits, the Tribunal found no established ineligibility of the resolution applicant under Section 29A: mere association with another company in CIRP was insufficient, no NPA classification material was shown, and disqualification under Section 164 could not be presumed without a formal declaration. Fresh objections were also not entertained in appeal, and the implemented resolution plan was treated as final.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
