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 a claim filed after the completion of liquidation proceedings under Section 59 of the IBC is barred by the three-year limitation period prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The liquidator had duly invited claims by public notice, and the last date for submission expired well before the respondent filed any claim or proof of claim. The liquidation process was completed, stakeholder payments disbursed, and the corporate debtor dissolved in accordance with the Code. The respondent's application for intervention raising the claim was filed beyond the three-year limitation period calculated from the date of the invoice or prior correspondence. The Tribunal erred in admitting this belated claim. Consequently, the impugned order allowing the respondent's claim was set aside and the appeal was allowed, confirming that claims post-liquidation completion and beyond the limitation period are not maintainable.
The NCLAT held that a claim filed after the completion of liquidation proceedings under Section 59 of the IBC is barred by the three-year limitation period prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The liquidator had duly invited claims by public notice, and the last date for submission expired well before the respondent filed any claim or proof of claim. The liquidation process was completed, stakeholder payments disbursed, and the corporate debtor dissolved in accordance with the Code. The respondent's application for intervention raising the claim was filed beyond the three-year limitation period calculated from the date of the invoice or prior correspondence. The Tribunal erred in admitting this belated claim. Consequently, the impugned order allowing the respondent's claim was set aside and the appeal was allowed, confirming that claims post-liquidation completion and beyond the limitation period are not maintainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.