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 NCLAT set aside the CIRP initiated by Respondent No. 2 against Respondent No. 1, holding it to be collusive and for purposes other than insolvency resolution. Respondent No. 3 was a director and shareholder in all three companies, controlling over 20% voting shares, thereby qualifying as a related party u/s 5(24)(m)(i) and (iii) of the IBC. The amount disbursed by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 1, being related parties, does not qualify as financial debt per the Supreme Court's ruling in Phoenix ARC case. The NCLAT relied on Hytone Merchants case, which allowed setting aside CIRP if collusion is proved despite fulfilling Section 7 requirements. Respondent No. 3's presence across companies and lack of denial regarding allegations indicated collusion between Respondents No. 1 and 2.
The NCLAT set aside the CIRP initiated by Respondent No. 2 against Respondent No. 1, holding it to be collusive and for purposes other than insolvency resolution. Respondent No. 3 was a director and shareholder in all three companies, controlling over 20% voting shares, thereby qualifying as a related party u/s 5(24)(m)(i) and (iii) of the IBC. The amount disbursed by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 1, being related parties, does not qualify as financial debt per the Supreme Court's ruling in Phoenix ARC case. The NCLAT relied on Hytone Merchants case, which allowed setting aside CIRP if collusion is proved despite fulfilling Section 7 requirements. Respondent No. 3's presence across companies and lack of denial regarding allegations indicated collusion between Respondents No. 1 and 2.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
