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, in appeal by the Operational Creditor, upheld dismissal of a S.9 IBC application on the ground that the statutory threshold under S.4 IBC was not satisfactorily established. The Tribunal noted that the revised computation of debt and interest, allegedly excluding invoices covered by the S.10A bar, was opaque and not invoice-wise correlated. The interest was calculated on a straight-line basis without specifying periods per invoice, and it was unclear whether invoices raised during the S.10A period were segregated and excluded. Given the lack of clarity in the 21.05.2024 invoice, the Adjudicating Authority's conclusion that the threshold requirement was not met was sustained, and the appeal was dismissed.
NCLAT, in appeal by the Operational Creditor, upheld dismissal of a S.9 IBC application on the ground that the statutory threshold under S.4 IBC was not satisfactorily established. The Tribunal noted that the revised computation of debt and interest, allegedly excluding invoices covered by the S.10A bar, was opaque and not invoice-wise correlated. The interest was calculated on a straight-line basis without specifying periods per invoice, and it was unclear whether invoices raised during the S.10A period were segregated and excluded. Given the lack of clarity in the 21.05.2024 invoice, the Adjudicating Authority's conclusion that the threshold requirement was not met was sustained, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.