Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Insolvency and BankruptcyFebruary 20, 2024Case LawsAT
Scope and ambit of Section 29A (c) of IBC - Disqualification to submit the Resolution Plan u/s 29A - The Tribunal observed that, Section 29A, sub-section (c) does, not only disqualify, those who were in management and control of the Corporate Debtor at the time when its account was declared NPA, but also disqualifies those, who were in management and control of the Corporate Debtor and in close proximity of time, before submission of Resolution Plan, who failed to clear the debts of the Corporate Debtor. - The NCLAT analyzed the MoU and subsequent actions by the appellant, concluding that the appellant had de facto control over the corporate debtor, including the right to nominate directors and make significant management decisions. This control started from the date of the MoU, making the appellant ineligible under Section 29A.
Scope and ambit of Section 29A (c) of IBC - Disqualification to submit the Resolution Plan u/s 29A - The Tribunal observed that, Section 29A, sub-section (c) does, not only disqualify, those who were in management and control of the Corporate Debtor at the time when its account was declared NPA, but also disqualifies those, who were in management and control of the Corporate Debtor and in close proximity of time, before submission of Resolution Plan, who failed to clear the debts of the Corporate Debtor. - The NCLAT analyzed the MoU and subsequent actions by the appellant, concluding that the appellant had de facto control over the corporate debtor, including the right to nominate directors and make significant management decisions. This control started from the date of the MoU, making the appellant ineligible under Section 29A.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
