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 dismissed the appeal and upheld the Adjudicating Authority's order holding that the purported lease deed dated 24.09.2007 is void and unenforceable. The Tribunal found the deed was not executed by persons authorised under the deed itself, was signed by an unauthorised employee, and no competent evidence proved payment of the substantial upfront consideration or advance rent alleged therein. Consequently, no leasehold rights in the specified land and plant transferred to the corporate debtor, and the assets cannot be treated as the corporate debtor's property. The Tribunal further held that reliance by a financial institution on the void deed does not validate it, and the impugned order dated 14.03.2024 is affirmed; appeals dismissed.
NCLAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Adjudicating Authority's order holding that the purported lease deed dated 24.09.2007 is void and unenforceable. The Tribunal found the deed was not executed by persons authorised under the deed itself, was signed by an unauthorised employee, and no competent evidence proved payment of the substantial upfront consideration or advance rent alleged therein. Consequently, no leasehold rights in the specified land and plant transferred to the corporate debtor, and the assets cannot be treated as the corporate debtor's property. The Tribunal further held that reliance by a financial institution on the void deed does not validate it, and the impugned order dated 14.03.2024 is affirmed; appeals dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.