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 NCLT's order admitting a s.9 IBC application and initiating CIRP against the corporate debtor. It held that there was no privity of contract between the operational creditor and the corporate debtor, as both had separate contracts with the Trust/Hospital, and the agreement between the Trust and the corporate debtor expressly negated any agency or sub-management arrangement. Services were rendered by the operational creditor to the Trust/Hospital, not to the corporate debtor; hence the alleged claim could not constitute "operational debt" under s.5(21) IBC. The corporate debtor had no direct liability towards the operational creditor.
NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside NCLT's order admitting a s.9 IBC application and initiating CIRP against the corporate debtor. It held that there was no privity of contract between the operational creditor and the corporate debtor, as both had separate contracts with the Trust/Hospital, and the agreement between the Trust and the corporate debtor expressly negated any agency or sub-management arrangement. Services were rendered by the operational creditor to the Trust/Hospital, not to the corporate debtor; hence the alleged claim could not constitute "operational debt" under s.5(21) IBC. The corporate debtor had no direct liability towards the operational creditor.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
