Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
NCLAT upheld the admission of Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP) for the Corporate Debtor (CD), a registered MSME. While acknowledging that the Section 54C application was filed beyond the 14-day statutory period after the Section 7 application, the Tribunal determined it would not serve stakeholder interests to invalidate the completed resolution. The CD's resolution involved three consortium bank members, with SBI (47.21%), IDBI (26.70%), and Bank of Baroda (26.09%) vote shares. The Tribunal directed the Successful Resolution Applicant to pay any differential amount due to the dissenting financial creditor within 30 days, in accordance with Section 30(2)(b) of IBC. The resolution plan's implementation was maintained, prioritizing the special protection afforded to MSMEs under Chapter III-A of the IBC.
NCLAT upheld the admission of Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP) for the Corporate Debtor (CD), a registered MSME. While acknowledging that the Section 54C application was filed beyond the 14-day statutory period after the Section 7 application, the Tribunal determined it would not serve stakeholder interests to invalidate the completed resolution. The CD's resolution involved three consortium bank members, with SBI (47.21%), IDBI (26.70%), and Bank of Baroda (26.09%) vote shares. The Tribunal directed the Successful Resolution Applicant to pay any differential amount due to the dissenting financial creditor within 30 days, in accordance with Section 30(2)(b) of IBC. The resolution plan's implementation was maintained, prioritizing the special protection afforded to MSMEs under Chapter III-A of the IBC.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
