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 Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Section 7 application filed by the Appellant, ruling that the share application money deposited by the Appellant with the Corporate Debtor did not constitute a 'financial debt' u/s 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The key points are: 1) For a debt to qualify as 'financial debt', there must be a disbursal against consideration for time value of money, and the transaction must fall within the ambit of sub-clauses (a) to (i) of Section 5(8). 2) Share application money is not expressly covered u/s 5(8). 3) The Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 apply only if the share application money was received pursuant to a private placement offer made in accordance with the Companies Act, 2013. 4) In the present case, there was no evidence of a valid concluded agreement between the parties regarding allotment of shares, nor any proof of a private placement offer made as per the Companies Act. 5) Therefore, the share application money advanced by the Appellant could not be treated as a deposit under the Rules, and consequently, did not qualify as a 'financial debt' under the IBC. The Appellate Tribunal found no infirmity in the Adjudicating Authority's order rejecting.
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Section 7 application filed by the Appellant, ruling that the share application money deposited by the Appellant with the Corporate Debtor did not constitute a 'financial debt' u/s 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The key points are: 1) For a debt to qualify as 'financial debt', there must be a disbursal against consideration for time value of money, and the transaction must fall within the ambit of sub-clauses (a) to (i) of Section 5(8). 2) Share application money is not expressly covered u/s 5(8). 3) The Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 apply only if the share application money was received pursuant to a private placement offer made in accordance with the Companies Act, 2013. 4) In the present case, there was no evidence of a valid concluded agreement between the parties regarding allotment of shares, nor any proof of a private placement offer made as per the Companies Act. 5) Therefore, the share application money advanced by the Appellant could not be treated as a deposit under the Rules, and consequently, did not qualify as a 'financial debt' under the IBC. The Appellate Tribunal found no infirmity in the Adjudicating Authority's order rejecting.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
