Regulatory consolidation for investment advisers: SEBI issues master circular consolidating guidance and prescribing compliance, reporting, fees and s...
Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
A resolution plan that expressly addresses insolvency resolution process (CIRP) costs makes those costs final and unassailable; however, where claimed CIRP costs were never placed before or approved by the committee of creditors as CIRP costs, those claims cannot be allowed. The tribunal examined merits and found the impugned related-party transaction approvals were for business continuity, not approvals of CIRP cost under the CIRP Regulations, so the adjudicating authority correctly rejected the application seeking payment. Consequently, the appeals challenging that rejection were dismissed for lack of merit.
A resolution plan that expressly addresses insolvency resolution process (CIRP) costs makes those costs final and unassailable; however, where claimed CIRP costs were never placed before or approved by the committee of creditors as CIRP costs, those claims cannot be allowed. The tribunal examined merits and found the impugned related-party transaction approvals were for business continuity, not approvals of CIRP cost under the CIRP Regulations, so the adjudicating authority correctly rejected the application seeking payment. Consequently, the appeals challenging that rejection were dismissed for lack of merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.