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 Appellant failed to establish operational debt and privity of contract with the Respondent regarding supply of goods. No documentary evidence or tripartite agreement stipulating terms and conditions of guarantee undertaken by Respondent for goods supplied to third party by Appellant was produced. Invoices were raised by third parties, not Appellant, precluding justifiable claim against Respondent. Absence of operational debt rendered Section 9 IBC proceedings initiation precondition non-existent. Respondent denied liability and questioned privity of contract in Section 8 reply. Application filed beyond three years limitation period from default date, hence time-barred. Appellant misused IBC provisions for recovery from Respondent instead of insolvency resolution. Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected Section 9 application lacking merit. Appeal dismissed by Appellate Tribunal.
The Appellant failed to establish operational debt and privity of contract with the Respondent regarding supply of goods. No documentary evidence or tripartite agreement stipulating terms and conditions of guarantee undertaken by Respondent for goods supplied to third party by Appellant was produced. Invoices were raised by third parties, not Appellant, precluding justifiable claim against Respondent. Absence of operational debt rendered Section 9 IBC proceedings initiation precondition non-existent. Respondent denied liability and questioned privity of contract in Section 8 reply. Application filed beyond three years limitation period from default date, hence time-barred. Appellant misused IBC provisions for recovery from Respondent instead of insolvency resolution. Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected Section 9 application lacking merit. Appeal dismissed by Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.