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 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Issue was whether amendment of a personal guarantor insolvency petition under s.95 IBC to change the date of default by adding a loan recall notice dated 05.04.2016 was permissible, despite objections on limitation and lack of proper invocation of guarantee. The tribunal held that amendment was justified since the creditor could not produce proof of service of an earlier statutory demand, and the added recall notice formed the factual basis to be tested on merits. Allowing amendment did not amount to any finding on limitation or validity of guarantee invocation, which could be urged in reply and decided by the adjudicating authority. Appeal was dismissed. - NCLAT
Issue was whether amendment of a personal guarantor insolvency petition under s.95 IBC to change the date of default by adding a loan recall notice dated 05.04.2016 was permissible, despite objections on limitation and lack of proper invocation of guarantee. The tribunal held that amendment was justified since the creditor could not produce proof of service of an earlier statutory demand, and the added recall notice formed the factual basis to be tested on merits. Allowing amendment did not amount to any finding on limitation or validity of guarantee invocation, which could be urged in reply and decided by the adjudicating authority. Appeal was dismissed. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
