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 adjudicated a bankruptcy proceeding involving a personal guarantor, determining the status of a regulatory penalty imposed by SEBI. The tribunal held that penalties of a regulatory nature fall under Section 79(15)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, qualifying as an 'excluded debt' outside bankruptcy proceedings. The court interpreted Section 238 of the Code as providing overriding effect, thereby excluding such penalties from the moratorium under Section 96. Consequently, the SEBI penalty was deemed not recoverable through bankruptcy proceedings, maintaining the statutory intent of excluding fine-like monetary impositions from insolvency resolution mechanisms. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, affirming the lower court's interpretation of the regulatory penalty's legal status.
NCLAT adjudicated a bankruptcy proceeding involving a personal guarantor, determining the status of a regulatory penalty imposed by SEBI. The tribunal held that penalties of a regulatory nature fall under Section 79(15)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, qualifying as an 'excluded debt' outside bankruptcy proceedings. The court interpreted Section 238 of the Code as providing overriding effect, thereby excluding such penalties from the moratorium under Section 96. Consequently, the SEBI penalty was deemed not recoverable through bankruptcy proceedings, maintaining the statutory intent of excluding fine-like monetary impositions from insolvency resolution mechanisms. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, affirming the lower court's interpretation of the regulatory penalty's legal status.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.