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 held that the insolvency application's threshold must be assessed at the time of filing, not subsequent deposit. Despite respondent's partial payment reducing the outstanding amount below Rs. 1 Cr during proceedings, the original filing amount of Rs. 1,16,25,583/- remains determinative. The Tribunal's dismissal was deemed a patent error, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with legal principles. The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the original tribunal to reconsider the Section 9 application based on the threshold existing at the time of initial filing.
NCLAT held that the insolvency application's threshold must be assessed at the time of filing, not subsequent deposit. Despite respondent's partial payment reducing the outstanding amount below Rs. 1 Cr during proceedings, the original filing amount of Rs. 1,16,25,583/- remains determinative. The Tribunal's dismissal was deemed a patent error, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with legal principles. The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the original tribunal to reconsider the Section 9 application based on the threshold existing at the time of initial filing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.