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 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 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 Regulation 39(1B)(b) does not bar consideration of a resolution plan merely because an additional member is inducted into an already shortlisted consortium, since a consortium is not treated as a new "person" under Section 3(23). The tribunal found no evidence that the plan was belated or that the inducted member was ineligible under Section 29A, and noted that the induction could improve the consortium's financial viability and value for the corporate debtor. As evaluation and negotiation of resolution plans lie within the CoC's commercial wisdom, and no statutory prohibition was shown, the challenge to the plan's consideration was rejected and the order upheld.
NCLAT held that Regulation 39(1B)(b) does not bar consideration of a resolution plan merely because an additional member is inducted into an already shortlisted consortium, since a consortium is not treated as a new "person" under Section 3(23). The tribunal found no evidence that the plan was belated or that the inducted member was ineligible under Section 29A, and noted that the induction could improve the consortium's financial viability and value for the corporate debtor. As evaluation and negotiation of resolution plans lie within the CoC's commercial wisdom, and no statutory prohibition was shown, the challenge to the plan's consideration was rejected and the order upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.