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 dismissed the appeal challenging the quashing of the e-auction conducted on 31.01.2024 for the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern and the rejection of the appellant's proposed Scheme of Arrangement u/s 230 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal held that with the enactment of the IBC, the significance of Section 230(1) in addressing insolvency has diminished. The follow-up process u/s 230(1) is necessary only when the Liquidator fails to sustain the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. Regulation 32A mandates the Liquidator to prioritize selling the Corporate Debtor as a going concern to maximize value. Minor discrepancies during the bid process were deemed inconsequential as the Successful Bidder is operating the Corporate Debtor as a going concern, fulfilling the IBC's objective. The appeal lacked merits and was dismissed.
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging the quashing of the e-auction conducted on 31.01.2024 for the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern and the rejection of the appellant's proposed Scheme of Arrangement u/s 230 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal held that with the enactment of the IBC, the significance of Section 230(1) in addressing insolvency has diminished. The follow-up process u/s 230(1) is necessary only when the Liquidator fails to sustain the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. Regulation 32A mandates the Liquidator to prioritize selling the Corporate Debtor as a going concern to maximize value. Minor discrepancies during the bid process were deemed inconsequential as the Successful Bidder is operating the Corporate Debtor as a going concern, fulfilling the IBC's objective. The appeal lacked merits and was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
