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 NCLAT allowed the appeals and set aside the NCLT orders, holding the two Section 95 petitions by the appellant/financial creditor to initiate PIRP against anonymized guarantors were not time-barred. The Tribunal clarified that the date of default stated in the petition indicates a fact of cause of action but need not be the terminus a quo for limitation, which is fact-specific. It held 20.11.2018 as the relevant terminus a quo, excluded the COVID suspension period (15.03.2020-28.02.2022) for computation, and concluded limitation extended into 2024. Consequently the petitions filed in November and December 2022 fell within the extended limitation period.
The NCLAT allowed the appeals and set aside the NCLT orders, holding the two Section 95 petitions by the appellant/financial creditor to initiate PIRP against anonymized guarantors were not time-barred. The Tribunal clarified that the date of default stated in the petition indicates a fact of cause of action but need not be the terminus a quo for limitation, which is fact-specific. It held 20.11.2018 as the relevant terminus a quo, excluded the COVID suspension period (15.03.2020-28.02.2022) for computation, and concluded limitation extended into 2024. Consequently the petitions filed in November and December 2022 fell within the extended limitation period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
