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 Committee of Creditors (CoC) does not have jurisdiction to substitute the successful resolution applicant (SRA) with another entity who was not part of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The CIRP Regulations mandate that only resolution plans from prospective resolution applicants (PRAs) in the final list can be considered. Substituting a non-PRA as the SRA is a breach of Regulation 39(1)(B). The CoC cannot modify an approved resolution plan by substituting the SRA. The Adjudicating Authority erred in approving the modified resolution plan with the substituted SRA. The order approving the plan is unsustainable. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order and directed the Resolution Professional to issue a fresh Form-G inviting resolution applicants and complete the CIRP within 90 days.
The Committee of Creditors (CoC) does not have jurisdiction to substitute the successful resolution applicant (SRA) with another entity who was not part of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The CIRP Regulations mandate that only resolution plans from prospective resolution applicants (PRAs) in the final list can be considered. Substituting a non-PRA as the SRA is a breach of Regulation 39(1)(B). The CoC cannot modify an approved resolution plan by substituting the SRA. The Adjudicating Authority erred in approving the modified resolution plan with the substituted SRA. The order approving the plan is unsustainable. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order and directed the Resolution Professional to issue a fresh Form-G inviting resolution applicants and complete the CIRP within 90 days.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
