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" ?
In this NCLAT decision, the Tribunal clarified that although it had stayed "further steps" to be taken by the IRP in its earlier order dated 07.12.2023, this did not terminate the CIRP or restore management to the suspended Board of Directors. The Tribunal held that once CIRP was initiated and the IRP appointed on 04.12.2023, management of the Corporate Debtor vested with the IRP by operation of Section 17 of IBC. Despite the stay preventing the IRP from taking procedural steps like inviting claims or constituting the Committee of Creditors, the legal fiction created by IBC means the IRP retains control over the Corporate Debtor's assets. The suspended Board cannot resume control, as the stay order did not revert to status quo ante or quash the CIRP initiation.
In this NCLAT decision, the Tribunal clarified that although it had stayed "further steps" to be taken by the IRP in its earlier order dated 07.12.2023, this did not terminate the CIRP or restore management to the suspended Board of Directors. The Tribunal held that once CIRP was initiated and the IRP appointed on 04.12.2023, management of the Corporate Debtor vested with the IRP by operation of Section 17 of IBC. Despite the stay preventing the IRP from taking procedural steps like inviting claims or constituting the Committee of Creditors, the legal fiction created by IBC means the IRP retains control over the Corporate Debtor's assets. The suspended Board cannot resume control, as the stay order did not revert to status quo ante or quash the CIRP initiation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
