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 Appellate Tribunal examined the applicability of Section 240A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to the Corporate Debtor registered as an MSME and whether the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) was ineligible u/s 29A(c) of the IBC to submit the Resolution Plan. The Adjudicating Authority had held the SRA ineligible, considering the Managing Director's control over the Corporate Debtor and Financial Creditor. However, the Appellate Tribunal observed that the Corporate Debtor's account became a Non-Performing Asset after it was registered as an MSME. Applying Section 240A, the SRA's ineligibility u/s 29A(c) cannot be reckoned when the account was declared non-performing under its management. No other ineligibility was pointed out. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority's order, dismissed the Suspended Director's application, allowed the Resolution Professional's application, and approved the Resolution Plan.
The Appellate Tribunal examined the applicability of Section 240A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to the Corporate Debtor registered as an MSME and whether the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) was ineligible u/s 29A(c) of the IBC to submit the Resolution Plan. The Adjudicating Authority had held the SRA ineligible, considering the Managing Director's control over the Corporate Debtor and Financial Creditor. However, the Appellate Tribunal observed that the Corporate Debtor's account became a Non-Performing Asset after it was registered as an MSME. Applying Section 240A, the SRA's ineligibility u/s 29A(c) cannot be reckoned when the account was declared non-performing under its management. No other ineligibility was pointed out. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority's order, dismissed the Suspended Director's application, allowed the Resolution Professional's application, and approved the Resolution Plan.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
