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 dismissed the appeal challenging the NCLT's impugned order dated 05.02.2024 concerning the sale/purchase agreement involving the appellant group. The Tribunal held that Section 242(2)(f) of the Companies Act, 2013 was inapplicable as no permission was sought from the NCLT for the tripartite agreement dated 23.01.2024, which was not placed on record before the NCLT. The OTS sanction letter conditioned settlement on NCLT approval, which was never obtained. The appellants failed to seek modification or termination of any agreement under Section 242(2)(f). The deposited amount of Rs. 15.75 crores (plus interest) and the proposed infusion of Rs. 1 crore by the respondents underscored the financial stakes involved. Interfering with the NCLT order would be detrimental to the company and shareholders. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the impugned order was found to be reasoned and justified.
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging the NCLT's impugned order dated 05.02.2024 concerning the sale/purchase agreement involving the appellant group. The Tribunal held that Section 242(2)(f) of the Companies Act, 2013 was inapplicable as no permission was sought from the NCLT for the tripartite agreement dated 23.01.2024, which was not placed on record before the NCLT. The OTS sanction letter conditioned settlement on NCLT approval, which was never obtained. The appellants failed to seek modification or termination of any agreement under Section 242(2)(f). The deposited amount of Rs. 15.75 crores (plus interest) and the proposed infusion of Rs. 1 crore by the respondents underscored the financial stakes involved. Interfering with the NCLT order would be detrimental to the company and shareholders. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the impugned order was found to be reasoned and justified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
