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" ?
A Section 9 insolvency petition was held not maintainable because the debt attributable to the corporate debtor alone did not meet the statutory minimum threshold under Section 4. The tribunal found that most invoices related to a sole proprietorship concern, while only a small portion stood in the name of the company. It held that the company and the proprietorship were separate legal entities, so liabilities of the proprietorship could not be aggregated with those of the corporate debtor merely because both were managed by the same person. The dismissal of the petition was therefore upheld.
A Section 9 insolvency petition was held not maintainable because the debt attributable to the corporate debtor alone did not meet the statutory minimum threshold under Section 4. The tribunal found that most invoices related to a sole proprietorship concern, while only a small portion stood in the name of the company. It held that the company and the proprietorship were separate legal entities, so liabilities of the proprietorship could not be aggregated with those of the corporate debtor merely because both were managed by the same person. The dismissal of the petition was therefore upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.