Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
A corporate debtor remains a separate juristic person even where it forms part of a group, and Regulation 29 of the Liquidation Process Regulations permits set-off only for mutual dealings between the corporate debtor and the same counterparty. The Tribunal rejected cross-entity aggregation of claims through the Group of Companies Doctrine, noting that each BISCON entity had undergone separate CIRP or liquidation and had separate billing and deposits. The appellant had also filed separate claims and disclosed no mutual set-off in the present proceeding. The liquidator was therefore entitled to recover the refundable balance as part of the liquidation estate, and the appeal was dismissed.
A corporate debtor remains a separate juristic person even where it forms part of a group, and Regulation 29 of the Liquidation Process Regulations permits set-off only for mutual dealings between the corporate debtor and the same counterparty. The Tribunal rejected cross-entity aggregation of claims through the Group of Companies Doctrine, noting that each BISCON entity had undergone separate CIRP or liquidation and had separate billing and deposits. The appellant had also filed separate claims and disclosed no mutual set-off in the present proceeding. The liquidator was therefore entitled to recover the refundable balance as part of the liquidation estate, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4787
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
