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 affirmed the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the Resolution Professional was lawfully entitled to take custody of share certificates and related documents of Subsidiary A and Subsidiary B as assets of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal held that under s.25(2)(a) and s.18(1)(f)(v) of the Code the RP must assume control of assets over which the Corporate Debtor retains ownership rights, even if held by third parties, and that the Appellant, having failed to prove payment of consideration or lawful entitlement, could not retain possession. The Adjudicating Authority possessed jurisdiction under ss.60(5), 63, 231 and 238 to grant the reliefs sought; appeal rejected.
NCLAT affirmed the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the Resolution Professional was lawfully entitled to take custody of share certificates and related documents of Subsidiary A and Subsidiary B as assets of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal held that under s.25(2)(a) and s.18(1)(f)(v) of the Code the RP must assume control of assets over which the Corporate Debtor retains ownership rights, even if held by third parties, and that the Appellant, having failed to prove payment of consideration or lawful entitlement, could not retain possession. The Adjudicating Authority possessed jurisdiction under ss.60(5), 63, 231 and 238 to grant the reliefs sought; appeal rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.