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 Tri directed the defreezing of the Corporate Debtor's demat account, which had been frozen due to non-compliance with SEBI LODR regulations. The Tribunal determined it had jurisdiction over the matter under Section 60(5) of IBC, finding a clear nexus between the dispute and the insolvency process. The Tribunal emphasized that continued freezing would impede the Liquidator's statutory duty to expeditiously liquidate assets and maximize recovery for stakeholders under Section 53(1) of IBC. The Tribunal held that IBC provisions have overriding effect over conflicting SEBI regulations when they obstruct the time-bound liquidation process, particularly when compliance by defaulting entities under liquidation is impossible.
The Tri directed the defreezing of the Corporate Debtor's demat account, which had been frozen due to non-compliance with SEBI LODR regulations. The Tribunal determined it had jurisdiction over the matter under Section 60(5) of IBC, finding a clear nexus between the dispute and the insolvency process. The Tribunal emphasized that continued freezing would impede the Liquidator's statutory duty to expeditiously liquidate assets and maximize recovery for stakeholders under Section 53(1) of IBC. The Tribunal held that IBC provisions have overriding effect over conflicting SEBI regulations when they obstruct the time-bound liquidation process, particularly when compliance by defaulting entities under liquidation is impossible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.