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" ?
NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging the impugned order rejecting the one-time settlement (OTS) proposal. It held that the adjudicating authority rightly rejected the OTS proposal as the resolution plan had already been approved. Reopening the proceedings to consider a subsequent settlement proposal would be impermissible after the finality of the approved resolution plan, unless compelling reasons existed, which was not the case here. The appeal against the impugned order was found unmerited.
NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging the impugned order rejecting the one-time settlement (OTS) proposal. It held that the adjudicating authority rightly rejected the OTS proposal as the resolution plan had already been approved. Reopening the proceedings to consider a subsequent settlement proposal would be impermissible after the finality of the approved resolution plan, unless compelling reasons existed, which was not the case here. The appeal against the impugned order was found unmerited.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.