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 allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the appellant qualified as a secured financial creditor based on charge registration with CERSAI under Regulation 21 of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. The tribunal applied the principle of lex posterior derogat priori, ruling that IBC provisions, being later enacted and containing a non-obstante clause under Section 238, override inconsistent provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The court emphasized that Regulation 21 uses "or" between sub-clauses, creating alternative methods to prove security interest through either RoC registration under Section 77 of Companies Act or CERSAI registration. Since the appellant's charge was registered with CERSAI, registration with RoC was not mandatory for secured creditor status under the insolvency framework.
NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the appellant qualified as a secured financial creditor based on charge registration with CERSAI under Regulation 21 of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. The tribunal applied the principle of lex posterior derogat priori, ruling that IBC provisions, being later enacted and containing a non-obstante clause under Section 238, override inconsistent provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The court emphasized that Regulation 21 uses "or" between sub-clauses, creating alternative methods to prove security interest through either RoC registration under Section 77 of Companies Act or CERSAI registration. Since the appellant's charge was registered with CERSAI, registration with RoC was not mandatory for secured creditor status under the insolvency framework.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.