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 13, 2024Case LawsAT
The Appellate Tribunal held that the Performance Bank Guarantee could be invoked during the moratorium period u/s 14 of IBC. Referring to a Supreme Court case, it clarified that the assets of the surety are separate from those of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal found that the Guarantee was rightfully invoked as the Contractor failed to complete the Contract within the specified period. The Adjudicating Authority erred in restraining the Appellant from encashing the Guarantee, and the Appeal was allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal held that the Performance Bank Guarantee could be invoked during the moratorium period u/s 14 of IBC. Referring to a Supreme Court case, it clarified that the assets of the surety are separate from those of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal found that the Guarantee was rightfully invoked as the Contractor failed to complete the Contract within the specified period. The Adjudicating Authority erred in restraining the Appellant from encashing the Guarantee, and the Appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.