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 allowed the appeal and set aside the adjudicating authority's order admitting the Section 9 application, holding that a clear pre-existing dispute existed and a civil suit filed by the operational creditor, claiming the same sum as in the demand notice, was pending prior to issuance of the notice. The Tribunal found the corporate debtor's defence was plausible and not a feeble or unsupported contention; notice of the suit was placed before the operational creditor and the adjudicating authority. Under the scheme of Sections 8 and 9 (including Section 9(5)(ii)(d)), admission was impermissible where suit/arbitration predates the demand notice, so the Section 9 admission was erroneous.
NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the adjudicating authority's order admitting the Section 9 application, holding that a clear pre-existing dispute existed and a civil suit filed by the operational creditor, claiming the same sum as in the demand notice, was pending prior to issuance of the notice. The Tribunal found the corporate debtor's defence was plausible and not a feeble or unsupported contention; notice of the suit was placed before the operational creditor and the adjudicating authority. Under the scheme of Sections 8 and 9 (including Section 9(5)(ii)(d)), admission was impermissible where suit/arbitration predates the demand notice, so the Section 9 admission was erroneous.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.