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 an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC is not maintainable against an order passed by the President of the NCLT under Rule 16(d), as such orders are administrative in nature and not adjudicatory orders under Part-II of the IBC. The President's power under Rule 16(d) to transfer cases between Benches is a roster and administrative function, not subject to appeal under Section 61. However, appeals against such orders lie under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal upheld the NCLT New Delhi Bench's decision to withhold hearing of the main matter pending the outcome of competing transfer applications filed by the parties seeking transfer of proceedings between the Mumbai and Delhi Benches. The appeal challenging this administrative order was dismissed for lack of maintainability and absence of error in the NCLT's approach to await completion of the transfer process.
The NCLAT held that an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC is not maintainable against an order passed by the President of the NCLT under Rule 16(d), as such orders are administrative in nature and not adjudicatory orders under Part-II of the IBC. The President's power under Rule 16(d) to transfer cases between Benches is a roster and administrative function, not subject to appeal under Section 61. However, appeals against such orders lie under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal upheld the NCLT New Delhi Bench's decision to withhold hearing of the main matter pending the outcome of competing transfer applications filed by the parties seeking transfer of proceedings between the Mumbai and Delhi Benches. The appeal challenging this administrative order was dismissed for lack of maintainability and absence of error in the NCLT's approach to await completion of the transfer process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.