<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transfer fee demand on leasehold land transfer by statutory corporation challenged; petition dismissed for fact suppression and inapplicable IBC Section 31.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95303</link>
    <description>A writ petition challenging a statutory corporation&#039;s demand for transfer fee on leasehold land was held non-maintainable because the petitioner invoked Article 226 by wilful suppression and misrepresentation of material facts, including selectively quoting the insolvency appellate order to portray recorded submissions as judicial observations; on this ground alone, discretionary relief was denied and the petition failed. On merits, the court found the transaction involved transfer of leasehold interest (not merely a change in shareholding), making precedents inapplicable, and rejected the &quot;clean slate&quot; plea under Section 31 IBC because the approved resolution plan did not extinguish the transfer-fee claim and the insolvency fora had expressly left it open to be pursued before the competent authority; the challenge was dismissed. - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2025 07:59:05 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2025 07:59:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=873463" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Transfer fee demand on leasehold land transfer by statutory corporation challenged; petition dismissed for fact suppression and inapplicable IBC Section 31.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95303</link>
      <description>A writ petition challenging a statutory corporation&#039;s demand for transfer fee on leasehold land was held non-maintainable because the petitioner invoked Article 226 by wilful suppression and misrepresentation of material facts, including selectively quoting the insolvency appellate order to portray recorded submissions as judicial observations; on this ground alone, discretionary relief was denied and the petition failed. On merits, the court found the transaction involved transfer of leasehold interest (not merely a change in shareholding), making precedents inapplicable, and rejected the &quot;clean slate&quot; plea under Section 31 IBC because the approved resolution plan did not extinguish the transfer-fee claim and the insolvency fora had expressly left it open to be pursued before the competent authority; the challenge was dismissed. - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2025 07:59:05 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95303</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>