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...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 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" ?
Scope of CIRP costs - Section 5(13) and Regulation 31 - waterfall mechanism - contract was completed during the CIRP period - The Tribunal emphasized that for a claim to be classified as CIRP cost, it must be directly related to maintaining the Corporate Debtor as a going concern and approved by the CoC. The primacy of CoC in such determinations. - Regarding Role of Contractual Terms: The Tribunal noted that payments to RBM Enterprises were contingent on NTPC payments to SHEL, which did not materialize. Therefore, the claim did not qualify as a CIRP cost. - Ultimately, the Tribunal overturned the Adjudicating Authority's order, declaring that the claim by RBM Enterprises does not meet the criteria for CIRP costs and should be classified under Section 53 of the Code for liquidation distribution.
Scope of CIRP costs - Section 5(13) and Regulation 31 - waterfall mechanism - contract was completed during the CIRP period - The Tribunal emphasized that for a claim to be classified as CIRP cost, it must be directly related to maintaining the Corporate Debtor as a going concern and approved by the CoC. The primacy of CoC in such determinations. - Regarding Role of Contractual Terms: The Tribunal noted that payments to RBM Enterprises were contingent on NTPC payments to SHEL, which did not materialize. Therefore, the claim did not qualify as a CIRP cost. - Ultimately, the Tribunal overturned the Adjudicating Authority's order, declaring that the claim by RBM Enterprises does not meet the criteria for CIRP costs and should be classified under Section 53 of the Code for liquidation distribution.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
