Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
The NCLAT upheld admission of CIRP and rejected the objection that Tower 5 should be excluded from the Section 7 threshold, holding that the insolvency was initiated for the same real estate project as a whole and that the Adjudicating Authority could examine the total units and applicants accordingly. It held that the IBC moratorium under Section 14 and its overriding effect under Section 238 prevent arbitration or interim orders from obstructing CIRP, and that claims over development rights or termination issues must be considered by the Resolution Professional at the appropriate stage. The Tribunal also held that development rights can form part of the corporate debtor's property under Section 3(27), while the admission order made no conclusive finding on title to Tower 5.
The NCLAT upheld admission of CIRP and rejected the objection that Tower 5 should be excluded from the Section 7 threshold, holding that the insolvency was initiated for the same real estate project as a whole and that the Adjudicating Authority could examine the total units and applicants accordingly. It held that the IBC moratorium under Section 14 and its overriding effect under Section 238 prevent arbitration or interim orders from obstructing CIRP, and that claims over development rights or termination issues must be considered by the Resolution Professional at the appropriate stage. The Tribunal also held that development rights can form part of the corporate debtor's property under Section 3(27), while the admission order made no conclusive finding on title to Tower 5.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.