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" ?
The dominant issue was whether an operational creditor's Section 9 application was barred by Section 10A because the defaults pertained to invoices allegedly falling within the excluded period. The tribunal held that the dates of default for two invoices relating to one project arose beyond the Section 10A prohibited period; hence, dismissal solely on Section 10A was legally untenable. As the debt under these two invoices exceeded the Section 4 threshold of Rs 1 crore, the adjudicating authority was required to consider them on merits. The impugned dismissal was set aside, the Section 9 application was restored, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration limited to those invoices - NCLAT
The dominant issue was whether an operational creditor's Section 9 application was barred by Section 10A because the defaults pertained to invoices allegedly falling within the excluded period. The tribunal held that the dates of default for two invoices relating to one project arose beyond the Section 10A prohibited period; hence, dismissal solely on Section 10A was legally untenable. As the debt under these two invoices exceeded the Section 4 threshold of Rs 1 crore, the adjudicating authority was required to consider them on merits. The impugned dismissal was set aside, the Section 9 application was restored, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration limited to those invoices - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.