The ITAT held that this was a case of no enquiry, not inadequate enquiry, and therefore clearly fell within Explanation 2 to Section 263, justifying revision by the PCIT even if the issue could otherwise admit two views on merits.

Upholding the statutory requirement under Section 230(9), the NCLAT observed that after acquiring 90% consent from the unsecured creditors, the tribunals cannot demand holding meetings.

Upholding the statutory requirement under Section 230(9), the NCLAT observed that after acquiring 90% consent from the unsecured creditors, the tribunals cannot demand holding meetings.