Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NCLAT partially allowed appellant's challenge to adjudicating authority's rejection of financial creditor applications. The Resolution Professional (RP) acknowledged payments received from appellants toward club suites but claimed inability to verify appellant's status as financial creditor due to forged documents from other claimants. RP later raised new defense of unit cancellation/surrender not previously presented to adjudicating authority. NCLAT found adjudicating authority failed to consider each application individually on merits, instead rejecting all applications solely based on decision in unrelated I.A. No.5177/2022 without establishing factual similarity. Court held individual consideration required given distinct facts of each case and RP's acknowledgment of payments. Order dated 21.11.2023 set aside regarding I.A. Nos. 1377/2023, 1375/2023, 1376/2023 & 1385/2023, remanding applications for fresh consideration by adjudicating authority.
NCLAT partially allowed appellant's challenge to adjudicating authority's rejection of financial creditor applications. The Resolution Professional (RP) acknowledged payments received from appellants toward club suites but claimed inability to verify appellant's status as financial creditor due to forged documents from other claimants. RP later raised new defense of unit cancellation/surrender not previously presented to adjudicating authority. NCLAT found adjudicating authority failed to consider each application individually on merits, instead rejecting all applications solely based on decision in unrelated I.A. No.5177/2022 without establishing factual similarity. Court held individual consideration required given distinct facts of each case and RP's acknowledgment of payments. Order dated 21.11.2023 set aside regarding I.A. Nos. 1377/2023, 1375/2023, 1376/2023 & 1385/2023, remanding applications for fresh consideration by adjudicating authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.