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 appeal challenged initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process as collusive and malicious and sought recall of admission; tribunal held the corporate debtor had validly authorised a representative by board resolution, undermining objections to representation, and found no material proving fraudulent initiation. The tribunal applied the strict standard of proof required for recalling an admission and concluded the applicant failed to meet that standard, so the adjudicating authority correctly rejected the recall application. Consequently the challenge to the Section 7 proceedings was dismissed and the admission order was maintained.
The appeal challenged initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process as collusive and malicious and sought recall of admission; tribunal held the corporate debtor had validly authorised a representative by board resolution, undermining objections to representation, and found no material proving fraudulent initiation. The tribunal applied the strict standard of proof required for recalling an admission and concluded the applicant failed to meet that standard, so the adjudicating authority correctly rejected the recall application. Consequently the challenge to the Section 7 proceedings was dismissed and the admission order was maintained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.