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" ?
Residuary jurisdiction under insolvency does not permit an adjudicating authority to declare title to a trademark where the question of ownership is not in relation to insolvency proceedings; accordingly the adjudicating authoritys declaration of trademark ownership was set aside because the approved resolution plan and related insolvency process could not determine trademark title. Findings that the assignment fell within avoidance provisions on preferential or undervalued transactions were held perverse and beyond the scope of the approval inquiry, and such statutory avoidance actions require specific pleading and timely forensic scrutiny by the resolution professional. Observations do not bind other fora deciding title on merits.
Residuary jurisdiction under insolvency does not permit an adjudicating authority to declare title to a trademark where the question of ownership is not in relation to insolvency proceedings; accordingly the adjudicating authoritys declaration of trademark ownership was set aside because the approved resolution plan and related insolvency process could not determine trademark title. Findings that the assignment fell within avoidance provisions on preferential or undervalued transactions were held perverse and beyond the scope of the approval inquiry, and such statutory avoidance actions require specific pleading and timely forensic scrutiny by the resolution professional. Observations do not bind other fora deciding title on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.