Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Interference with an approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is confined to patent illegality, material irregularity, violation of mandatory law, or perversity, and a completed insolvency process cannot be reopened for mere dissatisfaction with claim treatment. The appellant's claim remained disputed and contingent throughout verification because of reciprocal contractual claims and counter-claims, so there was no admitted operational debt and no basis for invoking notice rights under Section 24(3)(c). Allegations of fraud, suppression, and procedural impropriety were unsupported, and the appellant showed no material prejudice affecting the resolution outcome. The appeal was dismissed, and the approved and implemented plan was left undisturbed.
Interference with an approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is confined to patent illegality, material irregularity, violation of mandatory law, or perversity, and a completed insolvency process cannot be reopened for mere dissatisfaction with claim treatment. The appellant's claim remained disputed and contingent throughout verification because of reciprocal contractual claims and counter-claims, so there was no admitted operational debt and no basis for invoking notice rights under Section 24(3)(c). Allegations of fraud, suppression, and procedural impropriety were unsupported, and the appellant showed no material prejudice affecting the resolution outcome. The appeal was dismissed, and the approved and implemented plan was left undisturbed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
