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 17, 2024Case LawsHC
Violation of res judicata principles u/s 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, suppression of relevant facts from the Committee of Creditors (CoC), discrepancy in examining financial capability and eligibility of a Joint Resolution Applicant who is a former director of the Corporate Debtor and also a director in another company undergoing CIRP proceedings, disposal of the Corporate Debtor's assets without CoC approval, executing lease agreements with Prospective Resolution Applicants without CoC approval, and the review of an order by the Disciplinary Committee. The key issues are the eligibility of the Joint Resolution Applicant, non-compliance with Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code regarding the Resolution Professional's obligations, and the Disciplinary Committee's jurisdiction to sit in appeal against its own order. The court held that the principles of res judicata do not apply, the Resolution Professional failed to exercise due diligence, and the Disciplinary Committee's determination regarding the Resolution Professional's contraventions was appropriate, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Violation of res judicata principles u/s 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, suppression of relevant facts from the Committee of Creditors (CoC), discrepancy in examining financial capability and eligibility of a Joint Resolution Applicant who is a former director of the Corporate Debtor and also a director in another company undergoing CIRP proceedings, disposal of the Corporate Debtor's assets without CoC approval, executing lease agreements with Prospective Resolution Applicants without CoC approval, and the review of an order by the Disciplinary Committee. The key issues are the eligibility of the Joint Resolution Applicant, non-compliance with Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code regarding the Resolution Professional's obligations, and the Disciplinary Committee's jurisdiction to sit in appeal against its own order. The court held that the principles of res judicata do not apply, the Resolution Professional failed to exercise due diligence, and the Disciplinary Committee's determination regarding the Resolution Professional's contraventions was appropriate, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.