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 held that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC precludes financial creditors from enforcing security or recovering amounts from the corporate debtor. However, the Rs.8,92,980 paid to the financial creditor was not from the corporate debtor's account but from a co-applicant's separate account, thus excluding the transaction from the ambit of preferential transactions under Section 43. The tribunal found no merit in the adjudicating authority's direction to reverse the payment, as it lacked statutory support under Sections 14 or 43 of the IBC. Furthermore, there was no prohibition on authorized persons taking possession of the corporate debtor's assets. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order directing reversal of the payment was set aside.
The NCLAT held that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC precludes financial creditors from enforcing security or recovering amounts from the corporate debtor. However, the Rs.8,92,980 paid to the financial creditor was not from the corporate debtor's account but from a co-applicant's separate account, thus excluding the transaction from the ambit of preferential transactions under Section 43. The tribunal found no merit in the adjudicating authority's direction to reverse the payment, as it lacked statutory support under Sections 14 or 43 of the IBC. Furthermore, there was no prohibition on authorized persons taking possession of the corporate debtor's assets. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order directing reversal of the payment was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.