Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
Page of 4920
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 98394 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Adjudicating Authority retained jurisdiction to decide the pending application for recovery of corporate debtor's assets even after approval of the resolution plan, since the application had been filed and contested prior to plan approval and was validly continued by substitution of the successful resolution applicant/corporate debtor; the jurisdictional objection was rejected. The Authority also had jurisdiction under Section 60(5) IBC to examine the MoU and related rights; the unregistered MoU, premised on disputed cash payments and surrounded by credibility concerns, was not an agreement to sell and could not confer protection under Section 53A TPA, rendering the appellant an unauthorised occupant; eviction and handover were upheld. Usage charges were sustained, payable upon proper determination. - NCLAT
The Adjudicating Authority retained jurisdiction to decide the pending application for recovery of corporate debtor's assets even after approval of the resolution plan, since the application had been filed and contested prior to plan approval and was validly continued by substitution of the successful resolution applicant/corporate debtor; the jurisdictional objection was rejected. The Authority also had jurisdiction under Section 60(5) IBC to examine the MoU and related rights; the unregistered MoU, premised on disputed cash payments and surrounded by credibility concerns, was not an agreement to sell and could not confer protection under Section 53A TPA, rendering the appellant an unauthorised occupant; eviction and handover were upheld. Usage charges were sustained, payable upon proper determination. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4920 
