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 (NCLAT) dismissed the appeal and upheld the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the Code to entertain and adjudicate the IA enforcing the arbitral award against the Corporate Debtor. The arbitral award is final and unchallenged; the Resolution Professional is entitled to prosecute enforcement for revival of the Corporate Debtor, and the Adjudicating Authority may direct the judgment-debtor to pay the award sum. The tribunal affirmed that the IBC's time-bound regime prevails and that alleged delay in issuing the award vis-Ã -vis the MSME Act's 90-day aspiration does not vitiate the award or preclude enforcement. Consequently, the impugned order was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.
The Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismissed the appeal and upheld the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the Code to entertain and adjudicate the IA enforcing the arbitral award against the Corporate Debtor. The arbitral award is final and unchallenged; the Resolution Professional is entitled to prosecute enforcement for revival of the Corporate Debtor, and the Adjudicating Authority may direct the judgment-debtor to pay the award sum. The tribunal affirmed that the IBC's time-bound regime prevails and that alleged delay in issuing the award vis-Ã -vis the MSME Act's 90-day aspiration does not vitiate the award or preclude enforcement. Consequently, the impugned order was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
