Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NCLAT held that operational debt interest claims require explicit contractual agreement. The tribunal rejected the operational creditor's interest component in the Section 9 Application due to absence of specific contractual provisions. The Code's deliberate exclusion of interest from operational debt definition mandates that interest cannot be unilaterally imposed without mutual consent. The principal amount was ordered to be released to the respondent, effectively allowing the appeal while dismissing the interest claim. The tribunal emphasized that initiating corporate insolvency resolution process would not serve the Code's objective of maximizing debtor's asset value. Appeal was consequently allowed with the principal amount being released.
NCLAT held that operational debt interest claims require explicit contractual agreement. The tribunal rejected the operational creditor's interest component in the Section 9 Application due to absence of specific contractual provisions. The Code's deliberate exclusion of interest from operational debt definition mandates that interest cannot be unilaterally imposed without mutual consent. The principal amount was ordered to be released to the respondent, effectively allowing the appeal while dismissing the interest claim. The tribunal emphasized that initiating corporate insolvency resolution process would not serve the Code's objective of maximizing debtor's asset value. Appeal was consequently allowed with the principal amount being released.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.