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 affirmed the recall of order dated 04.06.2024 in a Section 7 IBC petition involving homebuyers. The Corporate Debtor had misrepresented facts regarding the number of unit holders and eligibility requirements under the second proviso to Section 7(1) of IBC. While the Corporate Debtor claimed 282 unit holders with only 12 allottees as petitioners, evidence showed the homebuyers had filed compliance affidavits with supporting MAHARERA certificates. The Tribunal held that inherent powers u/r 11 of NCLT Rules could be invoked to prevent abuse of process where orders were obtained through misrepresentation. The recall was justified as the original order was not decided on merits but influenced by distorted facts and procedural irregularities.
NCLAT affirmed the recall of order dated 04.06.2024 in a Section 7 IBC petition involving homebuyers. The Corporate Debtor had misrepresented facts regarding the number of unit holders and eligibility requirements under the second proviso to Section 7(1) of IBC. While the Corporate Debtor claimed 282 unit holders with only 12 allottees as petitioners, evidence showed the homebuyers had filed compliance affidavits with supporting MAHARERA certificates. The Tribunal held that inherent powers u/r 11 of NCLT Rules could be invoked to prevent abuse of process where orders were obtained through misrepresentation. The recall was justified as the original order was not decided on merits but influenced by distorted facts and procedural irregularities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
