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" ?
Limitation for Section 95 insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor ran from the date of actual invocation of the guarantee under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. Communications dated 29.01.2016 and 30.11.2018 were held not to be loan recall notices or effective invocations, as they only referred to default and possible legal action. The clear invocation occurred only on 03.08.2020, when the creditor expressly called upon the guarantor to pay. The proceedings initiated thereafter were therefore within limitation, and the NCLAT upheld their admission and dismissed the appeal.
Limitation for Section 95 insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor ran from the date of actual invocation of the guarantee under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. Communications dated 29.01.2016 and 30.11.2018 were held not to be loan recall notices or effective invocations, as they only referred to default and possible legal action. The clear invocation occurred only on 03.08.2020, when the creditor expressly called upon the guarantor to pay. The proceedings initiated thereafter were therefore within limitation, and the NCLAT upheld their admission and dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.