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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
The appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order of the adjudicating authority that refused to consider the discharge application filed by the bankrupt under Section 138(1)(a) of the IBC. The tribunal held that the bankruptcy trustee is statutorily obliged to apply for discharge after the expiry of one year from the bankruptcy commencement date, and failure to do so within the prescribed timeline cannot be excused. The adjudicating authority erred in rejecting the discharge application on the ground that it was not in alignment with the spirit of the IBC or could obstruct asset sale proceedings. The tribunal emphasized that the adjudicating authority must enforce IBC timelines and is empowered to direct the bankruptcy trustee accordingly or pass appropriate orders. Consequently, the order refusing discharge was quashed, and the appeal was allowed, mandating the adjudicating authority to pass discharge orders in compliance with statutory provisions.
The appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order of the adjudicating authority that refused to consider the discharge application filed by the bankrupt under Section 138(1)(a) of the IBC. The tribunal held that the bankruptcy trustee is statutorily obliged to apply for discharge after the expiry of one year from the bankruptcy commencement date, and failure to do so within the prescribed timeline cannot be excused. The adjudicating authority erred in rejecting the discharge application on the ground that it was not in alignment with the spirit of the IBC or could obstruct asset sale proceedings. The tribunal emphasized that the adjudicating authority must enforce IBC timelines and is empowered to direct the bankruptcy trustee accordingly or pass appropriate orders. Consequently, the order refusing discharge was quashed, and the appeal was allowed, mandating the adjudicating authority to pass discharge orders in compliance with statutory provisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
