Restriction of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A applies only to fraudulently or ineligible availed credit; mere wrongful recipient availment is insuffi...
Business reorganisation requires recognition of successor's modified return; draft orders against dissolved transferor quashed and fresh review direct...
Pre-commencement R&D deduction denied where business had not commenced; deeming benefit requires tangible start of manufacture or commercial exploitat...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5641 to 5660 of 96463 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Dispute concerns whether a settlement resolution applicant (SRA) qualified as a related party and thus was ineligible to submit a resolution plan. The tribunal noted the alleged transaction rested on a non-binding term sheet and no definitive contract or allotment of shares occurred, meaning the factual elements underpinning related party attribution were absent, yet the SRA was treated as a related party. The adjudicating authority previously considered and rejected the ineligibility challenge, rendering that determination final and permitting approval of the resolution plan; accordingly the appellate challenge to that approval was dismissed.
Dispute concerns whether a settlement resolution applicant (SRA) qualified as a related party and thus was ineligible to submit a resolution plan. The tribunal noted the alleged transaction rested on a non-binding term sheet and no definitive contract or allotment of shares occurred, meaning the factual elements underpinning related party attribution were absent, yet the SRA was treated as a related party. The adjudicating authority previously considered and rejected the ineligibility challenge, rendering that determination final and permitting approval of the resolution plan; accordingly the appellate challenge to that approval was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.