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" ?
The NCLAT held that the CoC acted properly in rejecting Respondent No. 1's late resolution plan submission. After extending the submission deadline from 05.02.2024 to 14.02.2024 (explicitly communicated as the final extension), the CoC was justified in not considering Respondent's plan received after this date. Following this decision, the CoC conducted a challenge process where the appellant was declared H-1 bidder. The Tribunal found the Adjudicating Authority erred in interfering with the CoC's commercial wisdom, as the CoC's actions aligned with Regulation 36B(6) of the IBBI Regulations, which requires committee approval for timeline extensions. The appeal was accordingly allowed, reversing the Adjudicating Authority's direction to the CoC to consider the late submission.
The NCLAT held that the CoC acted properly in rejecting Respondent No. 1's late resolution plan submission. After extending the submission deadline from 05.02.2024 to 14.02.2024 (explicitly communicated as the final extension), the CoC was justified in not considering Respondent's plan received after this date. Following this decision, the CoC conducted a challenge process where the appellant was declared H-1 bidder. The Tribunal found the Adjudicating Authority erred in interfering with the CoC's commercial wisdom, as the CoC's actions aligned with Regulation 36B(6) of the IBBI Regulations, which requires committee approval for timeline extensions. The appeal was accordingly allowed, reversing the Adjudicating Authority's direction to the CoC to consider the late submission.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
