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 appeal concerning classification of security deposit as financial debt under IBC. Appellant transferred Rs. 2,37,61,440/- to Corporate Debtor under MoU for premises handover. Though money was disbursed, transaction lacked essential elements of financial debt under Section 5(8). Security deposit was not disbursed for time value of money as no interest accrued from disbursement date. Interest clause in MoU was purely penal, triggered only upon breach/termination. Clause 8.5 explicitly established deposit's purpose as security rather than mobilization advance for construction. Transaction's nature being security deposit without commercial borrowing characteristics disqualified it as financial debt under Code.
NCLAT dismissed appeal concerning classification of security deposit as financial debt under IBC. Appellant transferred Rs. 2,37,61,440/- to Corporate Debtor under MoU for premises handover. Though money was disbursed, transaction lacked essential elements of financial debt under Section 5(8). Security deposit was not disbursed for time value of money as no interest accrued from disbursement date. Interest clause in MoU was purely penal, triggered only upon breach/termination. Clause 8.5 explicitly established deposit's purpose as security rather than mobilization advance for construction. Transaction's nature being security deposit without commercial borrowing characteristics disqualified it as financial debt under Code.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.