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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
Section 31 review of a resolution plan is limited to statutory compliance and procedural fairness; the Adjudicating Authority cannot reappraise CoC commercial wisdom unless the record shows opacity, incomplete disclosure or abuse of CIRP. The Tribunal found the Information Memorandum and process defective because asset values fell, liabilities disappeared, and no proper audit or meaningful disclosure explained the changes or addressed possible avoidance issues. It also recognised an implied duty on a creditor involved in parallel CIRPs to disclose material facts affecting transparency, though non-disclosure is not automatically fatal. On these facts, the plan was rightly rejected and liquidation confirmed.
Section 31 review of a resolution plan is limited to statutory compliance and procedural fairness; the Adjudicating Authority cannot reappraise CoC commercial wisdom unless the record shows opacity, incomplete disclosure or abuse of CIRP. The Tribunal found the Information Memorandum and process defective because asset values fell, liabilities disappeared, and no proper audit or meaningful disclosure explained the changes or addressed possible avoidance issues. It also recognised an implied duty on a creditor involved in parallel CIRPs to disclose material facts affecting transparency, though non-disclosure is not automatically fatal. On these facts, the plan was rightly rejected and liquidation confirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.