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" ?
AT upheld the cancellation of the IPO due to material misstatements in the prospectus regarding software procurement. The Tribunal determined that the appellant company failed to conduct proper due diligence when selecting a vendor with questionable credentials, approving the purchase within two days without verifying the vendor's capabilities or following its own procurement policy requiring three quotes. The merchant banker also failed to conduct adequate due diligence. The Tribunal emphasized that protecting retail investors is paramount, and disclosure adequacy in public offerings cannot be compromised. The company's alternative plea to proceed with the IPO under regulatory monitoring was rejected as the disclosure was deemed non-genuine and misleading.
AT upheld the cancellation of the IPO due to material misstatements in the prospectus regarding software procurement. The Tribunal determined that the appellant company failed to conduct proper due diligence when selecting a vendor with questionable credentials, approving the purchase within two days without verifying the vendor's capabilities or following its own procurement policy requiring three quotes. The merchant banker also failed to conduct adequate due diligence. The Tribunal emphasized that protecting retail investors is paramount, and disclosure adequacy in public offerings cannot be compromised. The company's alternative plea to proceed with the IPO under regulatory monitoring was rejected as the disclosure was deemed non-genuine and misleading.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.