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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) to adjudicate upon a closure notice issued prior to the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The key points are: The Adjudicating Authority did not determine its jurisdiction to pronounce on the closure notice dated 31.07.2017, issued before CIRP initiation. After CIRP initiation, all claims must be filed and examined within the CIRP/Liquidation Process. The High Court and Supreme Court orders granted liberty to raise claims and contentions before NCLT but did not adjudicate on NCLT's jurisdiction over the pre-CIRP closure notice. The Supreme Court's judgment in Embassy Property case clarified NCLAT's limited jurisdiction u/s 60(5). The closure notice, issued under the state Industrial Disputes Act prior to CIRP, is unrelated to the CIRP process. Hence, the Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected entertaining the challenge to the pre-CIRP closure notice, being outside its competence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the Adjudicating Authority did not err in rejecting the application challenging the pre-CIRP closure notice.
Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) to adjudicate upon a closure notice issued prior to the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The key points are: The Adjudicating Authority did not determine its jurisdiction to pronounce on the closure notice dated 31.07.2017, issued before CIRP initiation. After CIRP initiation, all claims must be filed and examined within the CIRP/Liquidation Process. The High Court and Supreme Court orders granted liberty to raise claims and contentions before NCLT but did not adjudicate on NCLT's jurisdiction over the pre-CIRP closure notice. The Supreme Court's judgment in Embassy Property case clarified NCLAT's limited jurisdiction u/s 60(5). The closure notice, issued under the state Industrial Disputes Act prior to CIRP, is unrelated to the CIRP process. Hence, the Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected entertaining the challenge to the pre-CIRP closure notice, being outside its competence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the Adjudicating Authority did not err in rejecting the application challenging the pre-CIRP closure notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
