<?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>2026 (8) TMI 1229 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797355</link>
    <description>Regulation 31A validly imposes a regulatory fee as an insolvency resolution process cost for resolution plans approved under Section 31 on or after 1 October 2022. The Board&#039;s express power to levy fees for carrying out the Code&#039;s purposes, together with its regulation-making power over process costs, supports inclusion of the fee within the residuary category of insolvency resolution process costs. The levy remains a regulatory fee, rather than a tax, where it has a broad nexus with regulatory functions; direct payer-specific quid pro quo is unnecessary. The fee is not excessive, arbitrary, retrospective, colourable, or based on excessive delegation where statutory guidance and legislative oversight apply.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2026 08:28:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=918217" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 1229 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797355</link>
      <description>Regulation 31A validly imposes a regulatory fee as an insolvency resolution process cost for resolution plans approved under Section 31 on or after 1 October 2022. The Board&#039;s express power to levy fees for carrying out the Code&#039;s purposes, together with its regulation-making power over process costs, supports inclusion of the fee within the residuary category of insolvency resolution process costs. The levy remains a regulatory fee, rather than a tax, where it has a broad nexus with regulatory functions; direct payer-specific quid pro quo is unnecessary. The fee is not excessive, arbitrary, retrospective, colourable, or based on excessive delegation where statutory guidance and legislative oversight apply.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797355</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>