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 NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority's order directing payment of fees and expenses to the IRP, rejecting the appellant's contention regarding non-ratification by the CoC. The Tribunal clarified that ratification, as per Section 196 of the Indian Contract Act, is a procedural affirmation of a prior decision and can be express or implied. The 2nd CoC meeting ratified the minutes of the 1st CoC meeting, thereby validating the IRP's fee and expenses incurred during his tenure. Consequently, the issue of non-ratification does not preclude payment to the IRP under Regulation 33(3) of the IBBI Regulations. The appellate challenge was found devoid of merit, and the appeal was dismissed, affirming the IRP's entitlement to the remitted amount without interference.
The NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority's order directing payment of fees and expenses to the IRP, rejecting the appellant's contention regarding non-ratification by the CoC. The Tribunal clarified that ratification, as per Section 196 of the Indian Contract Act, is a procedural affirmation of a prior decision and can be express or implied. The 2nd CoC meeting ratified the minutes of the 1st CoC meeting, thereby validating the IRP's fee and expenses incurred during his tenure. Consequently, the issue of non-ratification does not preclude payment to the IRP under Regulation 33(3) of the IBBI Regulations. The appellate challenge was found devoid of merit, and the appeal was dismissed, affirming the IRP's entitlement to the remitted amount without interference.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
