Transfer pricing comparability requires functional alignment, reliable financial data, and careful review of working capital and receivables adjustmen...
Transfer pricing rules require benchmarking corporate guarantees and associated-enterprise advances, while invalid domestic-transaction adjustments ca...
Prospective sugar export prohibition required registered letters of credit; private contracts and export quotas created no enforceable continuation ri...
Retroactive interim-moratorium exclusion permits protective asset disclosure and preservation measures against personal guarantors pending arbitration...
Page of 4778
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95557 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appeal challenged the maintainability of an application filed u/s 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code seeking refund of an amount deposited as part of a settlement under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The key points are: The CIRP of one corporate debtor (JDECL) was closed by allowing an application u/s 12A after payment of its entire debt of Rs. 3 crores. The MoU required payment of Rs. 25 lakhs for approval of the resolution plan for the other corporate debtor (UCL), but the plan was not approved. The NCLAT held that the application u/s 60(5)(c) was maintainable as it related to the insolvency resolution process. However, the prayer for refund of Rs. 3 crores paid for closing JDECL's CIRP was rejected as it would amount to double benefit. The NCLAT allowed refund of Rs. 25 lakhs paid for UCL's resolution plan, modifying the adjudicating authority's order to that extent.
The appeal challenged the maintainability of an application filed u/s 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code seeking refund of an amount deposited as part of a settlement under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The key points are: The CIRP of one corporate debtor (JDECL) was closed by allowing an application u/s 12A after payment of its entire debt of Rs. 3 crores. The MoU required payment of Rs. 25 lakhs for approval of the resolution plan for the other corporate debtor (UCL), but the plan was not approved. The NCLAT held that the application u/s 60(5)(c) was maintainable as it related to the insolvency resolution process. However, the prayer for refund of Rs. 3 crores paid for closing JDECL's CIRP was rejected as it would amount to double benefit. The NCLAT allowed refund of Rs. 25 lakhs paid for UCL's resolution plan, modifying the adjudicating authority's order to that extent.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4778
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
