Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
The CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed the issue of continuing an appeal post the NCLT's approval of the resolution plan. Referring to Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, it was held that the appeal abates once a successor interest with sufficient rights is appointed by NCLT. Citing precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling, it was established that the Tribunal's powers are limited by statute. Therefore, any order exceeding statutory powers is invalid. In line with Rule 22, the appeal abates upon IRP appointment or plan approval. The decision to abate the appeal aligns with the provisions of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
The CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed the issue of continuing an appeal post the NCLT's approval of the resolution plan. Referring to Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, it was held that the appeal abates once a successor interest with sufficient rights is appointed by NCLT. Citing precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling, it was established that the Tribunal's powers are limited by statute. Therefore, any order exceeding statutory powers is invalid. In line with Rule 22, the appeal abates upon IRP appointment or plan approval. The decision to abate the appeal aligns with the provisions of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
