Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
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...
Insolvency and BankruptcyApril 15, 2024Case LawsAT
Fixation of remuneration of liquidator - The Appellate Tribunal recognized the efforts made by the liquidator in attempting to manage the corporate debtor's affairs under challenging circumstances, including legal efforts to vacate asset attachments and manage stakeholder relations. However, it ultimately held that the liquidator’s remuneration could not be dissociated from the actual realization of assets, as prescribed by the IBBI regulations. - The appeal was dismissed on these grounds, reinforcing the principle that liquidator fees should be strictly tied to the effective realization of assets, not merely the efforts or time spent managing the debtor’s affairs without corresponding financial results.
Fixation of remuneration of liquidator - The Appellate Tribunal recognized the efforts made by the liquidator in attempting to manage the corporate debtor's affairs under challenging circumstances, including legal efforts to vacate asset attachments and manage stakeholder relations. However, it ultimately held that the liquidator’s remuneration could not be dissociated from the actual realization of assets, as prescribed by the IBBI regulations. - The appeal was dismissed on these grounds, reinforcing the principle that liquidator fees should be strictly tied to the effective realization of assets, not merely the efforts or time spent managing the debtor’s affairs without corresponding financial results.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
