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 denied the applicant's request for video recording of the proceedings under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, finding no special reason or exceptional grounds to justify such recording. The applicant lacked locus as it did not participate in the CIRP or plan approval stages of the cases involving ESIL and OSPIL, whose resolution plans were approved and implemented with the sanction of the Adjudicating Authority, this Tribunal, and the Apex Court. The applicant's first involvement was a recall application filed in 2023, well after the approval and implementation of the resolution plans. Given these circumstances and the absence of compelling considerations, the Tribunal held that the applicant must make its submissions in the appeal without video recording. The application for recording was accordingly dismissed.
The NCLAT denied the applicant's request for video recording of the proceedings under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, finding no special reason or exceptional grounds to justify such recording. The applicant lacked locus as it did not participate in the CIRP or plan approval stages of the cases involving ESIL and OSPIL, whose resolution plans were approved and implemented with the sanction of the Adjudicating Authority, this Tribunal, and the Apex Court. The applicant's first involvement was a recall application filed in 2023, well after the approval and implementation of the resolution plans. Given these circumstances and the absence of compelling considerations, the Tribunal held that the applicant must make its submissions in the appeal without video recording. The application for recording was accordingly dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.