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" ?
The Appellant's involvement in fictitious LED bulb transactions was held to constitute fraudulent trading under Section 66(1) of the IBC, as these dealings were orchestrated to inflate turnover and siphon funds, causing an actual loss of Rs. 3.18 crores to the Corporate Debtor. The NCLAT affirmed that the Adjudicating Authority acted within jurisdiction, relying on concrete forensic evidence rather than conjecture. The direction for the Appellant to contribute Rs. 3.18 crores to the Corporate Debtor's assets was upheld as a lawful, proportionate remedy aimed at restoring the debtor's estate, not punitive in nature. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the Appellant's liability for fraudulent depletion of corporate assets.
The Appellant's involvement in fictitious LED bulb transactions was held to constitute fraudulent trading under Section 66(1) of the IBC, as these dealings were orchestrated to inflate turnover and siphon funds, causing an actual loss of Rs. 3.18 crores to the Corporate Debtor. The NCLAT affirmed that the Adjudicating Authority acted within jurisdiction, relying on concrete forensic evidence rather than conjecture. The direction for the Appellant to contribute Rs. 3.18 crores to the Corporate Debtor's assets was upheld as a lawful, proportionate remedy aimed at restoring the debtor's estate, not punitive in nature. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the Appellant's liability for fraudulent depletion of corporate assets.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
