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" ?
Right of appeal under Section 61 is confined to a person whose legal rights are directly affected, and a collateral grievance from a separate CIRP does not confer locus standi. The appellant was not a stakeholder in the CIRP of Afcan Impex Pvt. Ltd., so it was not a person aggrieved. On merits, the Tribunal found no established ineligibility of the resolution applicant under Section 29A: mere association with another company in CIRP was insufficient, no NPA classification material was shown, and disqualification under Section 164 could not be presumed without a formal declaration. Fresh objections were also not entertained in appeal, and the implemented resolution plan was treated as final.
Right of appeal under Section 61 is confined to a person whose legal rights are directly affected, and a collateral grievance from a separate CIRP does not confer locus standi. The appellant was not a stakeholder in the CIRP of Afcan Impex Pvt. Ltd., so it was not a person aggrieved. On merits, the Tribunal found no established ineligibility of the resolution applicant under Section 29A: mere association with another company in CIRP was insufficient, no NPA classification material was shown, and disqualification under Section 164 could not be presumed without a formal declaration. Fresh objections were also not entertained in appeal, and the implemented resolution plan was treated as final.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.