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" ?
NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 14.05.2024, holding that the withdrawal of the CIRP was vitiated by material misrepresentation and suppression of facts. The Tribunal found the IRP failed to give effective public notice and to include a class of homebuyers as financial creditors, resulting in an incomplete CoC and selective settlement by the ex-management. The IRP's false assertion that no CoC existed enabled withdrawal without the statutory 90% approval under Section 12A, amounting to fraud on the adjudicating authority. Given prima facie proof of fraud and the prejudice to omitted creditors, recall of the withdrawal order was warranted and the appeal was allowed.
NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 14.05.2024, holding that the withdrawal of the CIRP was vitiated by material misrepresentation and suppression of facts. The Tribunal found the IRP failed to give effective public notice and to include a class of homebuyers as financial creditors, resulting in an incomplete CoC and selective settlement by the ex-management. The IRP's false assertion that no CoC existed enabled withdrawal without the statutory 90% approval under Section 12A, amounting to fraud on the adjudicating authority. Given prima facie proof of fraud and the prejudice to omitted creditors, recall of the withdrawal order was warranted and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.