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 NCLAT set aside the order and allowed the appeal, ruling that outstanding lease rental and premium due during the CIRP period cannot be included in CIRP costs. It relied on its previous decision in Sunil Kumar Agrawal case, which held that the explanation u/s 14(1)(d) of IBC is not applicable to premium amount or lease rent as they are not covered under licenses, permits, registrations, quotas, concessions, or clearances mentioned in that section. The NCLAT maintained the same order as in Sunil Kumar Agrawal case, despite NOIDA challenging it in the Supreme Court through a civil appeal where notice has been issued but no stay granted. The NCLAT will follow its previous order until the Supreme Court decides on its correctness in the pending civil appeal.
The NCLAT set aside the order and allowed the appeal, ruling that outstanding lease rental and premium due during the CIRP period cannot be included in CIRP costs. It relied on its previous decision in Sunil Kumar Agrawal case, which held that the explanation u/s 14(1)(d) of IBC is not applicable to premium amount or lease rent as they are not covered under licenses, permits, registrations, quotas, concessions, or clearances mentioned in that section. The NCLAT maintained the same order as in Sunil Kumar Agrawal case, despite NOIDA challenging it in the Supreme Court through a civil appeal where notice has been issued but no stay granted. The NCLAT will follow its previous order until the Supreme Court decides on its correctness in the pending civil appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
