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 the maintainability of a section 7...
NCLAT clarified that certain allottees must meet new criteria for filing insolvency under IBC. Allottees like appellants must adhere to rules. Appeal denied.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The NCLAT addressed the maintainability of a section 7 application under the IBC, focusing on the threshold set by Amendment Act 1 of 2020. It was held that allottees, including those in the Assured Returns Class of Creditors, are covered under the definition of 'allottees'. The appellants, being part of this class, had to meet the threshold criteria introduced by the amendment, which they failed to do. The Adjudicating Authority correctly determined that the appellants, as allottees, must adhere to the second proviso of Section 7(1) of IBC. The appeal was dismissed as the appellants were deemed to still fall within the ambit of 'allottees' and were required to meet the threshold for filing a section 7 application.
The NCLAT addressed the maintainability of a section 7 application under the IBC, focusing on the threshold set by Amendment Act 1 of 2020. It was held that allottees, including those in the Assured Returns Class of Creditors, are covered under the definition of 'allottees'. The appellants, being part of this class, had to meet the threshold criteria introduced by the amendment, which they failed to do. The Adjudicating Authority correctly determined that the appellants, as allottees, must adhere to the second proviso of Section 7(1) of IBC. The appeal was dismissed as the appellants were deemed to still fall within the ambit of 'allottees' and were required to meet the threshold for filing a section 7 application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.