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 an appeal challenging NCLT Delhi's jurisdiction to entertain Section 95 applications against personal guarantors under IBC. The Tribunal held that NCLT is the appropriate adjudicating authority for personal guarantor insolvency proceedings per Section 60(1), regardless of whether proceedings against the corporate debtor are pending. The expression "without prejudice" in Section 60(2) does not limit NCLT's jurisdiction only to cases where CIRP/liquidation of corporate debtor is ongoing. Following Supreme Court's interpretation in Lalit Kumar Jain case, personal guarantors constitute a distinct category of individuals, and their insolvency resolution falls within NCLT's jurisdiction. The appeal lacked merit as NCLT Delhi had rightful jurisdiction to entertain the Section 95 application filed by the financial creditor.
NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging NCLT Delhi's jurisdiction to entertain Section 95 applications against personal guarantors under IBC. The Tribunal held that NCLT is the appropriate adjudicating authority for personal guarantor insolvency proceedings per Section 60(1), regardless of whether proceedings against the corporate debtor are pending. The expression "without prejudice" in Section 60(2) does not limit NCLT's jurisdiction only to cases where CIRP/liquidation of corporate debtor is ongoing. Following Supreme Court's interpretation in Lalit Kumar Jain case, personal guarantors constitute a distinct category of individuals, and their insolvency resolution falls within NCLT's jurisdiction. The appeal lacked merit as NCLT Delhi had rightful jurisdiction to entertain the Section 95 application filed by the financial creditor.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.