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" ?
NCLAT held that a Section 95 application against a personal guarantor was not maintainable where the guarantee had not been invoked before the Form B demand notice. The tribunal ruled that the Adjudicating Authority erred in treating the demand notice itself as invocation, because the legal scheme required the guarantor's liability to arise earlier. It also rejected reliance on an alleged prior invocation notice, since the application did not plead it, the supporting documents did not include it, and reliance on it had been expressly abandoned before the Adjudicating Authority. The admission order was set aside, leaving the creditor free to pursue other remedies available in law.
NCLAT held that a Section 95 application against a personal guarantor was not maintainable where the guarantee had not been invoked before the Form B demand notice. The tribunal ruled that the Adjudicating Authority erred in treating the demand notice itself as invocation, because the legal scheme required the guarantor's liability to arise earlier. It also rejected reliance on an alleged prior invocation notice, since the application did not plead it, the supporting documents did not include it, and reliance on it had been expressly abandoned before the Adjudicating Authority. The admission order was set aside, leaving the creditor free to pursue other remedies available in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.