Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The adjustment of a corporate debtor's security deposit was treated as a pre-CIRP decision because the material showed approval before commencement of CIRP, with later billing entries viewed as consequential. The Tribunal rejected the allegation of a Section 14 moratorium breach and found no clear reconciliation proving wrongful appropriation of CIRP-period payments. It also held that the adjusted claim had been filed and accepted during CIRP, carried into the information memorandum and resolution plan, and could not be reopened after the plan was approved and implemented. Restoration of the amounts would impermissibly disturb settled commercial assumptions under the approved plan.
The adjustment of a corporate debtor's security deposit was treated as a pre-CIRP decision because the material showed approval before commencement of CIRP, with later billing entries viewed as consequential. The Tribunal rejected the allegation of a Section 14 moratorium breach and found no clear reconciliation proving wrongful appropriation of CIRP-period payments. It also held that the adjusted claim had been filed and accepted during CIRP, carried into the information memorandum and resolution plan, and could not be reopened after the plan was approved and implemented. Restoration of the amounts would impermissibly disturb settled commercial assumptions under the approved plan.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.