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 Appellate Tribunal affirmed the rejection of the Section 9 application, holding that the termination of the contract constituted a pre-existing dispute under Section 8(2) of the IBC. The Corporate Debtor had communicated the existence of a dispute within 10 days of the Demand Notice, specifically citing illegal and unilateral termination. Evidence including communications showed the contracted goods had been produced and that the dispute was bona fide. The Adjudicating Authority correctly applied the test for pre-existing dispute, requiring only the raising of a plausible dispute, not final adjudication. The Tribunal reiterated that IBC proceedings are not for recovery but for insolvency resolution and found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's reliance on established principles to dismiss the application. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.
The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the rejection of the Section 9 application, holding that the termination of the contract constituted a pre-existing dispute under Section 8(2) of the IBC. The Corporate Debtor had communicated the existence of a dispute within 10 days of the Demand Notice, specifically citing illegal and unilateral termination. Evidence including communications showed the contracted goods had been produced and that the dispute was bona fide. The Adjudicating Authority correctly applied the test for pre-existing dispute, requiring only the raising of a plausible dispute, not final adjudication. The Tribunal reiterated that IBC proceedings are not for recovery but for insolvency resolution and found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's reliance on established principles to dismiss the application. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.