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, upholding the Adjudicating Authority's orders and affirming that no violation of natural justice occurred as the appellant was afforded multiple opportunities yet repeatedly delayed proceedings and failed to controvert the factual matrix. The Tribunal held that alleged fraudulent share transactions by the appellant, a KMP, demonstrated intent to defraud creditors and vitiated the impugned transactions, thereby invoking Section 66(1) of the Code. The court rejected the contention that Section 66(1) cannot operate absent Section 66(2), observing prior authority addressed only Section 66(2) and does not preclude independent operation of Section 66(1). Appeal dismissed with impugned orders sustained.
NCLAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the Adjudicating Authority's orders and affirming that no violation of natural justice occurred as the appellant was afforded multiple opportunities yet repeatedly delayed proceedings and failed to controvert the factual matrix. The Tribunal held that alleged fraudulent share transactions by the appellant, a KMP, demonstrated intent to defraud creditors and vitiated the impugned transactions, thereby invoking Section 66(1) of the Code. The court rejected the contention that Section 66(1) cannot operate absent Section 66(2), observing prior authority addressed only Section 66(2) and does not preclude independent operation of Section 66(1). Appeal dismissed with impugned orders sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.