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 Appellant, a related party unsecured financial creditor, challenged the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the Adjudicating Authority, claiming discrimination against other financial creditors. The court held that the Appellant was aware of being treated as a related party and removed from the CoC, but never challenged this treatment during the insolvency proceedings. Among financial creditors, only secured non-related creditors are being paid, while the Appellant, an unsecured related party creditor, is not entitled to payment under the IBC. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in M.K. Rajagopalan, the court ruled that the CoC and Adjudicating Authority rightly differentiated between related and non-related parties, and there was no infirmity in the approved resolution plan. Consequently, the Appellant's appeal was dismissed.
The Appellant, a related party unsecured financial creditor, challenged the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the Adjudicating Authority, claiming discrimination against other financial creditors. The court held that the Appellant was aware of being treated as a related party and removed from the CoC, but never challenged this treatment during the insolvency proceedings. Among financial creditors, only secured non-related creditors are being paid, while the Appellant, an unsecured related party creditor, is not entitled to payment under the IBC. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in M.K. Rajagopalan, the court ruled that the CoC and Adjudicating Authority rightly differentiated between related and non-related parties, and there was no infirmity in the approved resolution plan. Consequently, the Appellant's appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
