Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
A consortium under a resolution process could not be reconstituted after the original resolution plan had already been approved by the CoC. The Tribunal held that the RFRP clause permitting a change in consortium applied only before plan approval, because eligibility, financial strength, feasibility and viability had already been assessed on the original consortium and its consortium agreement. Induction of a new member with a substantial shareholding after approval created a reconstituted applicant outside the final list of prospective resolution applicants, contrary to the RFRP and the CIRP framework. The plea based on CoC commercial wisdom was rejected, as judicial deference does not extend to plans that fail statutory and process compliance. The remand for reconsideration was upheld.
A consortium under a resolution process could not be reconstituted after the original resolution plan had already been approved by the CoC. The Tribunal held that the RFRP clause permitting a change in consortium applied only before plan approval, because eligibility, financial strength, feasibility and viability had already been assessed on the original consortium and its consortium agreement. Induction of a new member with a substantial shareholding after approval created a reconstituted applicant outside the final list of prospective resolution applicants, contrary to the RFRP and the CIRP framework. The plea based on CoC commercial wisdom was rejected, as judicial deference does not extend to plans that fail statutory and process compliance. The remand for reconsideration was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.