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 held that the amount of Rs. 1 crore lying in the "No Lien Account" with the Appellant bank belongs to the Corporate Debtor and is an asset of the Corporate Debtor. Once the CIRP was initiated, the IRP/RP was obliged to take control/custody of this amount as per Section 18 of the IBC, 2016. Since the moratorium had commenced upon initiation of CIRP, the bank could not have appropriated this money. Following a previous judgment, the NCLAT found that the Adjudicating Authority rightly held that the said amount is an asset of the Corporate Debtor, and the IRP/RP has rightly claimed the said deposit for utilization in CIRP. Consequently, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal.
The NCLAT held that the amount of Rs. 1 crore lying in the "No Lien Account" with the Appellant bank belongs to the Corporate Debtor and is an asset of the Corporate Debtor. Once the CIRP was initiated, the IRP/RP was obliged to take control/custody of this amount as per Section 18 of the IBC, 2016. Since the moratorium had commenced upon initiation of CIRP, the bank could not have appropriated this money. Following a previous judgment, the NCLAT found that the Adjudicating Authority rightly held that the said amount is an asset of the Corporate Debtor, and the IRP/RP has rightly claimed the said deposit for utilization in CIRP. Consequently, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
