https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800785 Section 33(1A) gives the Adjudicating Authority judicial, rather than mechanical or unfettered, discretion over a CoC-approved CIRP restoration request. Refusal requires cogent, relevant, record-based reasons directed to value maximisation and the resolution-first objective. Unsupported concerns about monetisation of carried-forward losses, without evidence, procedural opportunity, or tax-law analysis, cannot displace a unanimous CoC decision. The ability to pursue an arbitral receivable in liquidation is also insufficient without comparing value, timelines, costs, litigation risk, and market response. Departure from an earlier extension assessment requires explanation, and a liquidation order must be a reasoned speaking order engaging with the CoC's deliberations and comparative value considerations. en-us Tue, 06 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Oct 2026 04:18:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800785 Section 33(1A) gives the Adjudicating Authority judicial, rather than mechanical or unfettered, discretion over a CoC-approved CIRP restoration request. Refusal requires cogent, relevant, record-based reasons directed to value maximisation and the resolution-first objective. Unsupported concerns about monetisation of carried-forward losses, without evidence, procedural opportunity, or tax-law analysis, cannot displace a unanimous CoC decision. The ability to pursue an arbitral receivable in liquidation is also insufficient without comparing value, timelines, costs, litigation risk, and market response. Departure from an earlier extension assessment requires explanation, and a liquidation order must be a reasoned speaking order engaging with the CoC's deliberations and comparative value considerations. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 06 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800785