Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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se the CoC and the successful resolution applicant even before approval by the adjudicating authority, and cannot be withdrawn or modified after submission for approval.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se the CoC and the successful resolution applicant even before approval by the adjudicating authority, and cannot be withdrawn or modified after submission for approval.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 4827 
Join Channel 
