Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
NCLAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the NCLT's order approving the resolution plan for the corporate debtor. It held that, although the appellant's expenditure on the corporate debtor had been acknowledged in prior proceedings, the appellant failed to substantiate its claim as financial or operational debt under the IBC, particularly given the delayed filing, absence of supporting documents, and an exorbitant, contractually unsupported interest component. NCLAT found no contravention of s.30(2)(b) IBC or the CIRP Regulations and reiterated the primacy of the CoC's commercial wisdom, especially where the plan had been approved with 100% voting share. As the resolution plan complied with all mandatory statutory requirements and no material irregularity was established, judicial interference was held to be unwarranted. The successful resolution applicant was permitted to proceed in terms of the approved plan, and the appeal was disposed of.
NCLAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the NCLT's order approving the resolution plan for the corporate debtor. It held that, although the appellant's expenditure on the corporate debtor had been acknowledged in prior proceedings, the appellant failed to substantiate its claim as financial or operational debt under the IBC, particularly given the delayed filing, absence of supporting documents, and an exorbitant, contractually unsupported interest component. NCLAT found no contravention of s.30(2)(b) IBC or the CIRP Regulations and reiterated the primacy of the CoC's commercial wisdom, especially where the plan had been approved with 100% voting share. As the resolution plan complied with all mandatory statutory requirements and no material irregularity was established, judicial interference was held to be unwarranted. The successful resolution applicant was permitted to proceed in terms of the approved plan, and the appeal was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.