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 quashed the order dated 10.03.2025 for procedural irregularities in exercising suo motu rectification powers under Rule 154 of NCLT Rules. The Tribunal's rectification order was deemed invalid due to violation of natural justice principles, specifically the audi alteram partem rule, as no notice was issued to parties prior to modifying the original docket order. The appellate tribunal held that substantive rectifications cannot be made without providing an opportunity of hearing to affected parties, emphasizing the critical requirement of procedural fairness in judicial proceedings. Appeal was consequently allowed, setting aside the impugned rectification order.
NCLAT quashed the order dated 10.03.2025 for procedural irregularities in exercising suo motu rectification powers under Rule 154 of NCLT Rules. The Tribunal's rectification order was deemed invalid due to violation of natural justice principles, specifically the audi alteram partem rule, as no notice was issued to parties prior to modifying the original docket order. The appellate tribunal held that substantive rectifications cannot be made without providing an opportunity of hearing to affected parties, emphasizing the critical requirement of procedural fairness in judicial proceedings. Appeal was consequently allowed, setting aside the impugned rectification order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.