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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
The NCLAT determined that dissenting financial creditors are entitled to a pro-rata share of the resolution value rather than merely the liquidation value when the resolution value exceeds liquidation value. The tribunal ruled this approach is "fair and equitable" under Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the I&B Code. The appellant (RBL Bank) was awarded Rs. 42.09 Crores, with all dissenting FCs to receive proportionate shares of the resolution plan value. Regarding payment priority, the NCLAT held that dissenting creditors must be paid first, but on a pro-rata basis when payments come in installments. The tribunal ordered Respondent No. 1 to remit the determined amount to the Resolution Professional by March 31, 2025, for distribution among financial creditors as detailed in the plan.
The NCLAT determined that dissenting financial creditors are entitled to a pro-rata share of the resolution value rather than merely the liquidation value when the resolution value exceeds liquidation value. The tribunal ruled this approach is "fair and equitable" under Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the I&B Code. The appellant (RBL Bank) was awarded Rs. 42.09 Crores, with all dissenting FCs to receive proportionate shares of the resolution plan value. Regarding payment priority, the NCLAT held that dissenting creditors must be paid first, but on a pro-rata basis when payments come in installments. The tribunal ordered Respondent No. 1 to remit the determined amount to the Resolution Professional by March 31, 2025, for distribution among financial creditors as detailed in the plan.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
