Restriction of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A applies only to fraudulently or ineligible availed credit; mere wrongful recipient availment is insuffi...
A resolution plan was rejected because material non-compliances in the CIRP, including inadequate disclosure of avoidance/PUFE transactions, non-transparent handling of those proceedings, and lapses in performance security, undermined the fairness of the process. The Appellate Tribunal held that the Committee of Creditors' commercial wisdom could not cure defects where other applicants were deprived of material information and the plan proceeded on incomplete disclosure. It also upheld adverse findings against the erstwhile resolution professional, noting unsatisfactory explanations for failures in dealing with avoidance applications and security compliance. Both appeals were dismissed, and the direction to investigate the resolution professional's conduct was maintained.
A resolution plan was rejected because material non-compliances in the CIRP, including inadequate disclosure of avoidance/PUFE transactions, non-transparent handling of those proceedings, and lapses in performance security, undermined the fairness of the process. The Appellate Tribunal held that the Committee of Creditors' commercial wisdom could not cure defects where other applicants were deprived of material information and the plan proceeded on incomplete disclosure. It also upheld adverse findings against the erstwhile resolution professional, noting unsatisfactory explanations for failures in dealing with avoidance applications and security compliance. Both appeals were dismissed, and the direction to investigate the resolution professional's conduct was maintained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.