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 both appeals and all pending interlocutory applications, upholding the Adjudicating Authority's refusal to implead the Appellant and its rejection of the intervention application. The Tribunal held that the Appellant was not a necessary party under Order I r.10 CPC because effective adjudication of IA No.1091/2024 could occur in the Appellant's absence. The Adjudicating Authority permissibly granted leave to file a counterclaim before the Arbitral Tribunal during the moratorium under Section 14 IBC, subject to a rider keeping declaration of any award in abeyance; that order's legal consequences could not be agitated by the absent-party objection, and no interference was warranted.
NCLAT dismissed both appeals and all pending interlocutory applications, upholding the Adjudicating Authority's refusal to implead the Appellant and its rejection of the intervention application. The Tribunal held that the Appellant was not a necessary party under Order I r.10 CPC because effective adjudication of IA No.1091/2024 could occur in the Appellant's absence. The Adjudicating Authority permissibly granted leave to file a counterclaim before the Arbitral Tribunal during the moratorium under Section 14 IBC, subject to a rider keeping declaration of any award in abeyance; that order's legal consequences could not be agitated by the absent-party objection, and no interference was warranted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
