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 impugned order dated 16.05.2024 of the Ld. NCLT, directing the ROC to restore the name of Respondent No.1 company to the Register of Companies. The Appellate Tribunal held that restoration is just, equitable, and in public interest, as the company must remain in existence to execute sale deeds in favour of allottees of residential and commercial units, subject to a favourable outcome in pending High Court proceedings. NCLAT observed that the existence of only one director does not impede restoration and left it to shareholders to appoint an additional director, failing which the ROC may take appropriate steps. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.
NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 16.05.2024 of the Ld. NCLT, directing the ROC to restore the name of Respondent No.1 company to the Register of Companies. The Appellate Tribunal held that restoration is just, equitable, and in public interest, as the company must remain in existence to execute sale deeds in favour of allottees of residential and commercial units, subject to a favourable outcome in pending High Court proceedings. NCLAT observed that the existence of only one director does not impede restoration and left it to shareholders to appoint an additional director, failing which the ROC may take appropriate steps. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
