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" ?
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.