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 rejected contempt proceedings against resolution professional (RP) for filing Section 12A withdrawal application. The Tribunal determined that RP's application for CIRP withdrawal, approved by 98% Committee of Creditors (CoC) vote share, did not constitute willful disobedience of prior tribunal order. The RP was statutorily obligated to file withdrawal application, and since CoC did not approve fee payments to former or current RP, no contempt could be established. The tribunal found no merit in the contempt application, emphasizing that statutory compliance cannot be construed as contumacious conduct, thereby dismissing the application and protecting the RP's procedural actions under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
NCLAT rejected contempt proceedings against resolution professional (RP) for filing Section 12A withdrawal application. The Tribunal determined that RP's application for CIRP withdrawal, approved by 98% Committee of Creditors (CoC) vote share, did not constitute willful disobedience of prior tribunal order. The RP was statutorily obligated to file withdrawal application, and since CoC did not approve fee payments to former or current RP, no contempt could be established. The tribunal found no merit in the contempt application, emphasizing that statutory compliance cannot be construed as contumacious conduct, thereby dismissing the application and protecting the RP's procedural actions under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.