Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
The Tribunal dismissed the application filed by companies holding units in the Corporate Debtor's project, seeking to intervene and proposing a scheme of compromise and arrangement u/s 230 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal held that there are no provisions in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) for intervention by a third party at the pre-admission stage. The Tribunal's role is limited to ascertaining the existence of financial debt and its default on an application filed u/s 7 of the IBC. The Financial Creditors had already opposed the issuance of notice in the Intervention Petitions and pressed for dismissal, arguing that the IBC does not allow intervention at the pre-admission stage. The Tribunal concluded that entertaining the application would severely impact and prejudice the rights of the individual allottees who filed the main company petition, leading to unnecessary delay in the proceedings.
The Tribunal dismissed the application filed by companies holding units in the Corporate Debtor's project, seeking to intervene and proposing a scheme of compromise and arrangement u/s 230 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal held that there are no provisions in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) for intervention by a third party at the pre-admission stage. The Tribunal's role is limited to ascertaining the existence of financial debt and its default on an application filed u/s 7 of the IBC. The Financial Creditors had already opposed the issuance of notice in the Intervention Petitions and pressed for dismissal, arguing that the IBC does not allow intervention at the pre-admission stage. The Tribunal concluded that entertaining the application would severely impact and prejudice the rights of the individual allottees who filed the main company petition, leading to unnecessary delay in the proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
