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 Appellate Tribunal examined whether there were sufficient grounds to recall its previous order dated 02.04.2024, wherein liberty was granted by the Supreme Court to file a review limited to the grounds of limitation. The Tribunal held that it possesses inherent jurisdiction to entertain recall applications on cogent grounds, subject to not violating statutory provisions. The Adjudicating Authority had relied on Supreme Court judgments affirming the applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act for Section 7 applications under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), considering the date of default as the starting point. The Appellant's contention that the application should be time-barred under Article 21 was found misconceived and untenable. The Adjudicating Authority correctly held that the application was within the limitation period. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order and dismissed the recall application.
The Appellate Tribunal examined whether there were sufficient grounds to recall its previous order dated 02.04.2024, wherein liberty was granted by the Supreme Court to file a review limited to the grounds of limitation. The Tribunal held that it possesses inherent jurisdiction to entertain recall applications on cogent grounds, subject to not violating statutory provisions. The Adjudicating Authority had relied on Supreme Court judgments affirming the applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act for Section 7 applications under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), considering the date of default as the starting point. The Appellant's contention that the application should be time-barred under Article 21 was found misconceived and untenable. The Adjudicating Authority correctly held that the application was within the limitation period. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order and dismissed the recall application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.