Transfer pricing comparability requires functional alignment, reliable financial data, and careful review of working capital and receivables adjustmen...
Transfer pricing rules require benchmarking corporate guarantees and associated-enterprise advances, while invalid domestic-transaction adjustments ca...
Prospective sugar export prohibition required registered letters of credit; private contracts and export quotas created no enforceable continuation ri...
Retroactive interim-moratorium exclusion permits protective asset disclosure and preservation measures against personal guarantors pending arbitration...
The case pertains to the extinguishment of claims under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, after the acceptance of the modified resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The key points are: 1) The revenue department had raised a demand against Ruchi Soya for imported crude palm oil, which was not claimed during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under IBC. 2) As per Section 32A of IBC, the revenue's demand stood extinguished since it was not part of the approved resolution plan. 3) The Gujarat High Court, in a similar case, held that upon completion of the resolution process and the revenue not lodging any claim as an operational creditor, any liability extinguishes u/ss 31 and 32A of IBC. 4) The resolution plan aims to continue the company's business as a going concern under IBC's insolvency resolution process, distinct from liquidation. 5) Rule 22 of the 1982 Rules, regarding abatement of appeals, is inapplicable when a resolution plan is approved. 6) The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee (Ruchi Soya/Patanjali), holding that the revenue's demand stood extinguished due to non-inclusion.
The case pertains to the extinguishment of claims under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, after the acceptance of the modified resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The key points are: 1) The revenue department had raised a demand against Ruchi Soya for imported crude palm oil, which was not claimed during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under IBC. 2) As per Section 32A of IBC, the revenue's demand stood extinguished since it was not part of the approved resolution plan. 3) The Gujarat High Court, in a similar case, held that upon completion of the resolution process and the revenue not lodging any claim as an operational creditor, any liability extinguishes u/ss 31 and 32A of IBC. 4) The resolution plan aims to continue the company's business as a going concern under IBC's insolvency resolution process, distinct from liquidation. 5) Rule 22 of the 1982 Rules, regarding abatement of appeals, is inapplicable when a resolution plan is approved. 6) The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee (Ruchi Soya/Patanjali), holding that the revenue's demand stood extinguished due to non-inclusion.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
