Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 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 affirmed that the principal employer cannot be treated as the debtor under Section 9 of the IBC where there is no privity of contract with the sub-contractor. The tribunal held that payment responsibility rests solely with the contractor, with the employer's payments on behalf of the contractor being conditional and recoverable from the contractor. The appellant failed to establish any contractual relationship with the respondent, and a pre-existing dispute regarding account reconciliation between the sub-contractor and contractor existed. Reliance was placed on precedent affirming that the principal employer is not liable for payment absent direct contractual obligation. Consequently, the appeal challenging the dismissal of the application under Section 9 was rejected, with no interference in the impugned order.
The NCLAT affirmed that the principal employer cannot be treated as the debtor under Section 9 of the IBC where there is no privity of contract with the sub-contractor. The tribunal held that payment responsibility rests solely with the contractor, with the employer's payments on behalf of the contractor being conditional and recoverable from the contractor. The appellant failed to establish any contractual relationship with the respondent, and a pre-existing dispute regarding account reconciliation between the sub-contractor and contractor existed. Reliance was placed on precedent affirming that the principal employer is not liable for payment absent direct contractual obligation. Consequently, the appeal challenging the dismissal of the application under Section 9 was rejected, with no interference in the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.