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 upheld the Adjudicating Authority's refusal to grant the Liquidator's claimed remuneration under Regulation 4(2)(b) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. It held that the Liquidator's fee, being percentage-based on assets realised or distributed net of liquidation costs, was not payable as no assets were realised or distributed during the liquidation period. The Tribunal further noted that neither the CoC, at the time of recommending liquidation, nor the SCC subsequently, had fixed or approved any separate fee for the present Liquidator. Consequently, the Liquidator's application seeking a fixed fee of Rs. 2.5 lakhs per month was rejected as untenable, and the appeal was dismissed.
NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority's refusal to grant the Liquidator's claimed remuneration under Regulation 4(2)(b) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. It held that the Liquidator's fee, being percentage-based on assets realised or distributed net of liquidation costs, was not payable as no assets were realised or distributed during the liquidation period. The Tribunal further noted that neither the CoC, at the time of recommending liquidation, nor the SCC subsequently, had fixed or approved any separate fee for the present Liquidator. Consequently, the Liquidator's application seeking a fixed fee of Rs. 2.5 lakhs per month was rejected as untenable, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
