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 upheld the Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the Section 9 application filed by the Operational Creditor. The key points are: The Operational Creditor admitted to being unable to discharge obligations as per tender specifications, indicating a pre-existing dispute regarding the quality of pump sets supplied. The Adjudicating Authority correctly concluded that detailed inquiry into the pre-existing dispute was required, which is beyond its summary jurisdiction under IBC. Once plausibility of a pre-existing dispute is noticed, the Adjudicating Authority need not conduct further investigation. The Corporate Debtor's defence cannot be deemed moonshine or illusory. For such disputed operational debt, Section 9 proceedings cannot be initiated by the Operational Creditor. The Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected the application as conditions u/s 9 were not fulfilled. The Appellate Tribunal found no error in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the Section 9 application filed by the Operational Creditor. The key points are: The Operational Creditor admitted to being unable to discharge obligations as per tender specifications, indicating a pre-existing dispute regarding the quality of pump sets supplied. The Adjudicating Authority correctly concluded that detailed inquiry into the pre-existing dispute was required, which is beyond its summary jurisdiction under IBC. Once plausibility of a pre-existing dispute is noticed, the Adjudicating Authority need not conduct further investigation. The Corporate Debtor's defence cannot be deemed moonshine or illusory. For such disputed operational debt, Section 9 proceedings cannot be initiated by the Operational Creditor. The Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected the application as conditions u/s 9 were not fulfilled. The Appellate Tribunal found no error in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
