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 allowed the appeal and set aside Section 9 proceedings under IBC against the Corporate Debtor. The tribunal found a pre-existing dispute between parties involving complex transactions and intermingled disputes between Promoters of both entities. Though transactions occurred in a running account for supply of goods, additional disputes regarding premises rental arrangements were evident. Following Mobilox Innovations precedent, NCLAT held that disputes were not patently feeble but required proper adjudication. While limitation period was not an issue due to recent part-payment extending it by 3 years, the tribunal concluded Section 9 petition was not maintainable due to genuine pre-existing disputes requiring examination beyond corporate veil.
NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside Section 9 proceedings under IBC against the Corporate Debtor. The tribunal found a pre-existing dispute between parties involving complex transactions and intermingled disputes between Promoters of both entities. Though transactions occurred in a running account for supply of goods, additional disputes regarding premises rental arrangements were evident. Following Mobilox Innovations precedent, NCLAT held that disputes were not patently feeble but required proper adjudication. While limitation period was not an issue due to recent part-payment extending it by 3 years, the tribunal concluded Section 9 petition was not maintainable due to genuine pre-existing disputes requiring examination beyond corporate veil.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.