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" ?
Insolvency and BankruptcyAugust 5, 2024Case LawsAT
The Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected the petition filed u/s 9 of the Code due to a pre-existing dispute between the parties. The Corporate Debtor raised a plausible contention about forgery allegations and a pre-existing dispute, which is not a feeble legal argument. The Appellant did not complete the project as per the contractual terms, and there were claims and counterclaims leading to a dispute. The issue of limitation was also raised, as the statutory demand notice was issued beyond the prescribed period from the date of the last invoice. The Impugned Order dismissing the petition u/s 9 was upheld, and the Appeal was dismissed, as there existed a pre-existing dispute between the parties, which is not a moonshine.
The Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected the petition filed u/s 9 of the Code due to a pre-existing dispute between the parties. The Corporate Debtor raised a plausible contention about forgery allegations and a pre-existing dispute, which is not a feeble legal argument. The Appellant did not complete the project as per the contractual terms, and there were claims and counterclaims leading to a dispute. The issue of limitation was also raised, as the statutory demand notice was issued beyond the prescribed period from the date of the last invoice. The Impugned Order dismissing the petition u/s 9 was upheld, and the Appeal was dismissed, as there existed a pre-existing dispute between the parties, which is not a moonshine.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
