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 allowed the appeal against admission of a Section 9 application, finding a clear pre-existing dispute between the parties. The Tribunal held that the corporate debtor's reply dated 28.01.2020 to the demand notice constituted a valid notice of dispute under Section 9(5)(d). The Adjudicating Authority erred by dismissing this reply despite evidence of disputes predating the demand notice, including correspondence and the corporate debtor's 21.08.2019 response to a legal notice. Following Mobilox Innovations precedent, the NCLAT concluded that the Section 9 application should not have been admitted as the dispute was not moonshine but substantiated by relevant materials on record.
The NCLAT allowed the appeal against admission of a Section 9 application, finding a clear pre-existing dispute between the parties. The Tribunal held that the corporate debtor's reply dated 28.01.2020 to the demand notice constituted a valid notice of dispute under Section 9(5)(d). The Adjudicating Authority erred by dismissing this reply despite evidence of disputes predating the demand notice, including correspondence and the corporate debtor's 21.08.2019 response to a legal notice. Following Mobilox Innovations precedent, the NCLAT concluded that the Section 9 application should not have been admitted as the dispute was not moonshine but substantiated by relevant materials on record.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
