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 rejected the preliminary objections raised by the Corporate Debtor that the application u/s 9 filed by the Operational Creditor was barred by limitation. It held that the last payment was made on 26.08.2019, which was within three years, and there was an acknowledgment by the Corporate Debtor in writing reflected in the reply to the demand notice. As both conditions u/s 19 of the Limitation Act were fulfilled, the Operational Creditor was entitled to the benefit of extension of limitation. Consequently, the Section 9 application was well within the limitation period. The NCLAT dismissed the appeal.
The NCLAT rejected the preliminary objections raised by the Corporate Debtor that the application u/s 9 filed by the Operational Creditor was barred by limitation. It held that the last payment was made on 26.08.2019, which was within three years, and there was an acknowledgment by the Corporate Debtor in writing reflected in the reply to the demand notice. As both conditions u/s 19 of the Limitation Act were fulfilled, the Operational Creditor was entitled to the benefit of extension of limitation. Consequently, the Section 9 application was well within the limitation period. The NCLAT dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
