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" ?
Valuation of security shares was treated as a separate issue and not decided on merits; the tribunal held that rejecting the company petition solely because valuation was to be determined by a parallel forum was impermissible, so the petition must be decided independently on its own merits. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the petition was quashed and the company petition revived for adjudication. The decision emphasises that valuation proceedings before a debt recovery forum cannot automatically preclude maintainability of an insolvency petition and that parallel-forum directions in prior judgments do not oust independent section-wise adjudication under the insolvency regime.
Valuation of security shares was treated as a separate issue and not decided on merits; the tribunal held that rejecting the company petition solely because valuation was to be determined by a parallel forum was impermissible, so the petition must be decided independently on its own merits. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the petition was quashed and the company petition revived for adjudication. The decision emphasises that valuation proceedings before a debt recovery forum cannot automatically preclude maintainability of an insolvency petition and that parallel-forum directions in prior judgments do not oust independent section-wise adjudication under the insolvency regime.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.