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 upheld the Adjudicating Authority's interpretation of Clause 21 of the resolution plan, confirming that dissenting financial creditors must receive their liquidation value upfront before any payments to assenting financial creditors. The Tribunal distinguished this case from Puro Natural Sugars JV, noting that here the plan explicitly provided for priority payment to dissenting creditors. The dissenting creditors had rejected the plan because they preferred receiving a smaller amount (15% liquidation value) immediately rather than 100% over ten years. The NCLAT found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's directive requiring payment to dissenting financial creditors before any recoveries by assenting creditors. Appeal dismissed.
The NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority's interpretation of Clause 21 of the resolution plan, confirming that dissenting financial creditors must receive their liquidation value upfront before any payments to assenting financial creditors. The Tribunal distinguished this case from Puro Natural Sugars JV, noting that here the plan explicitly provided for priority payment to dissenting creditors. The dissenting creditors had rejected the plan because they preferred receiving a smaller amount (15% liquidation value) immediately rather than 100% over ten years. The NCLAT found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's directive requiring payment to dissenting financial creditors before any recoveries by assenting creditors. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
