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 approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the Adjudicating Authority. The key findings were: The adoption of the Swiss Challenge Method by the CoC for value maximization was an outcome of its commercial wisdom, which cannot be interfered with. The appellant's contention questioning the Swiss Challenge method lacked merit. The Resolution Professional (RP) conducted the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) fairly and transparently, providing equal opportunity to all resolution applicants. The CoC duly considered and evaluated the revised resolution plan of the successful resolution applicant (SRA) before approval. The appellant's claim of denial of effective participation in CoC meetings was unfounded. The Adjudicating Authority did not err in approving the SRA's resolution plan, as no grounds u/s 61(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) were established to interfere with the CoC's commercial decision. The NCLAT upheld the primacy of the CoC's commercial wisdom and found no irregularities in the CIRP conduct by the RP.
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging the approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the Adjudicating Authority. The key findings were: The adoption of the Swiss Challenge Method by the CoC for value maximization was an outcome of its commercial wisdom, which cannot be interfered with. The appellant's contention questioning the Swiss Challenge method lacked merit. The Resolution Professional (RP) conducted the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) fairly and transparently, providing equal opportunity to all resolution applicants. The CoC duly considered and evaluated the revised resolution plan of the successful resolution applicant (SRA) before approval. The appellant's claim of denial of effective participation in CoC meetings was unfounded. The Adjudicating Authority did not err in approving the SRA's resolution plan, as no grounds u/s 61(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) were established to interfere with the CoC's commercial decision. The NCLAT upheld the primacy of the CoC's commercial wisdom and found no irregularities in the CIRP conduct by the RP.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
