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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
The NCLAT condoned the delay in re-filing appeals but ultimately dismissed the appellant's case. The Tribunal held that the appellant could not file a recall application alleging fraud after the resolution plan approval order dated 30.05.2022 had already been affirmed by the Appellate Court on 28.09.2022 and finalized by the Supreme Court on 11.03.2024 when the appellant withdrew their appeal under Section 62 of IBC. The NCLAT emphasized that once an order is affirmed through the appellate process, it attains finality, precluding subsequent recall applications regardless of when knowledge of alleged fraud was acquired. The dismissal of applications by the impugned order was found free from apparent error and did not warrant appellate interference.
The NCLAT condoned the delay in re-filing appeals but ultimately dismissed the appellant's case. The Tribunal held that the appellant could not file a recall application alleging fraud after the resolution plan approval order dated 30.05.2022 had already been affirmed by the Appellate Court on 28.09.2022 and finalized by the Supreme Court on 11.03.2024 when the appellant withdrew their appeal under Section 62 of IBC. The NCLAT emphasized that once an order is affirmed through the appellate process, it attains finality, precluding subsequent recall applications regardless of when knowledge of alleged fraud was acquired. The dismissal of applications by the impugned order was found free from apparent error and did not warrant appellate interference.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
