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" ?
Dismissal of Section 7 application under IBC by Adjudicating Authority upheld. Appellant argued amount of interest could be claimed u/s 7, but failed to notify Adjudicating Authority about alleged bonafide mistake in Section 9 application where it averred amount was an investment instead of loan. Appellant paid principal amount but pursued appeal for interest. Held, filing Section 7 petition after taking contrary stance in Section 9 application is an abuse of process. Appellant's conduct deprecated as unacceptable practice of changing stance as per convenience, dragging respondent into unnecessary litigation. Appeal dismissed with cost of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on appellant, payable to respondent within 30 days.
Dismissal of Section 7 application under IBC by Adjudicating Authority upheld. Appellant argued amount of interest could be claimed u/s 7, but failed to notify Adjudicating Authority about alleged bonafide mistake in Section 9 application where it averred amount was an investment instead of loan. Appellant paid principal amount but pursued appeal for interest. Held, filing Section 7 petition after taking contrary stance in Section 9 application is an abuse of process. Appellant's conduct deprecated as unacceptable practice of changing stance as per convenience, dragging respondent into unnecessary litigation. Appeal dismissed with cost of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on appellant, payable to respondent within 30 days.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.