Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Objective characteristics govern magnesium bis-glycinate chelate classification as an amino-acid coordination compound, not a food preparation or anti...
Independent professional certification requires pleaded knowledge or complicity for criminal liability; untimely complaints remain barred by limitatio...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A CoC-approved resolution plan remains binding inter se the CoC and the successful resolution applicant even before approval by the adjudicating authority, and cannot be withdrawn or modified after submission for approval. The Tribunal applied Ebix Singapore and State Bank of India v. Consortium of Murarilal Jalan to hold that the CoC had no jurisdiction to authorise the Resolution Professional to seek withdrawal of the pending plan approval application. It further held that post-submission CoC meetings under Regulation 18(2) may deal only with matters not affecting the resolution plan. The order allowing withdrawal on the RP's oral request was set aside, the approval application was revived, and the separate promoter-related application was left open.
A CoC-approved resolution plan remains binding inter se the CoC and the successful resolution applicant even before approval by the adjudicating authority, and cannot be withdrawn or modified after submission for approval. The Tribunal applied Ebix Singapore and State Bank of India v. Consortium of Murarilal Jalan to hold that the CoC had no jurisdiction to authorise the Resolution Professional to seek withdrawal of the pending plan approval application. It further held that post-submission CoC meetings under Regulation 18(2) may deal only with matters not affecting the resolution plan. The order allowing withdrawal on the RP's oral request was set aside, the approval application was revived, and the separate promoter-related application was left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
