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" ?
NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging the rejection of belated additional claims filed by the Appellant-EPFO after the resolution plan's approval. The Tribunal held that claims filed 521 days post the prescribed deadline cannot be entertained, as accepting such claims would compromise the insolvency resolution process and violate the 'clean slate' principle established by Supreme Court precedents. The resolution plan, once approved by the Committee of Creditors, becomes binding on all stakeholders, and no subsequent claims can be thrust upon the resolution applicant, thereby upholding the Resolution Professional's decision to reject the delayed claims.
NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging the rejection of belated additional claims filed by the Appellant-EPFO after the resolution plan's approval. The Tribunal held that claims filed 521 days post the prescribed deadline cannot be entertained, as accepting such claims would compromise the insolvency resolution process and violate the 'clean slate' principle established by Supreme Court precedents. The resolution plan, once approved by the Committee of Creditors, becomes binding on all stakeholders, and no subsequent claims can be thrust upon the resolution applicant, thereby upholding the Resolution Professional's decision to reject the delayed claims.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.