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" ?
The NCLAT addressed issues regarding the approval of a Resolution Plan by Suraksha Realty Limited, focusing on the treatment of claims filed in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. The key question was whether YEIDA is a secured creditor of the Corporate Debtor. The NCLAT held that YEIDA is indeed a secured creditor, based on a Supreme Court judgment. The treatment of YEIDA's claim in the Resolution Plan was deemed unsustainable by the Adjudicating Authority. The NCLAT also discussed the claim towards EDC, concluding that it is not a secured claim under the 1976 Act. Consent of YEIDA was not required for treatment of its claims in the CIRP or for transfer of leasehold rights. The NCLAT directed the SRA to pay the Appellant its secured operational debt of Rs.1689 crores, in line with the percentage offered to other secured creditors. The SRA was instructed to make the payment as per the proposed timeline. The appeal was disposed of with these directions.
The NCLAT addressed issues regarding the approval of a Resolution Plan by Suraksha Realty Limited, focusing on the treatment of claims filed in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. The key question was whether YEIDA is a secured creditor of the Corporate Debtor. The NCLAT held that YEIDA is indeed a secured creditor, based on a Supreme Court judgment. The treatment of YEIDA's claim in the Resolution Plan was deemed unsustainable by the Adjudicating Authority. The NCLAT also discussed the claim towards EDC, concluding that it is not a secured claim under the 1976 Act. Consent of YEIDA was not required for treatment of its claims in the CIRP or for transfer of leasehold rights. The NCLAT directed the SRA to pay the Appellant its secured operational debt of Rs.1689 crores, in line with the percentage offered to other secured creditors. The SRA was instructed to make the payment as per the proposed timeline. The appeal was disposed of with these directions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
