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 a Section 9 IBC application could be maintained by re-segregating invoices to assert default beyond the Section 10A protected period and to defeat dismissal by the Adjudicating Authority. The tribunal held that once the operational creditor expressly pleaded that only seven invoices aggregating to Rs. 1.65 crore were outside Section 10A, it could not later add further invoices to inflate default, as this would amount to shifting the goalposts and using IBC as a coercive recovery mechanism. Since the corporate debtor had deposited Rs. 1.65 crore by FDR with the registry towards those seven invoices, rejection of the Section 9 application was upheld and the appeal was dismissed, with liberty to pursue civil remedies for Section 10A-period claims. - NCLAT
The dominant issue was whether a Section 9 IBC application could be maintained by re-segregating invoices to assert default beyond the Section 10A protected period and to defeat dismissal by the Adjudicating Authority. The tribunal held that once the operational creditor expressly pleaded that only seven invoices aggregating to Rs. 1.65 crore were outside Section 10A, it could not later add further invoices to inflate default, as this would amount to shifting the goalposts and using IBC as a coercive recovery mechanism. Since the corporate debtor had deposited Rs. 1.65 crore by FDR with the registry towards those seven invoices, rejection of the Section 9 application was upheld and the appeal was dismissed, with liberty to pursue civil remedies for Section 10A-period claims. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.