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 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
In a back-to-back construction contract, the NCLAT held that where the corporate debtor was entitled only to a 4% margin and had assigned the risks, liabilities and profit share to the sub-contractor, the remaining 96% of receivables from the principal employer belonged to the sub-contractor and was held in trust outside the liquidation estate under section 36(4)(a)(i). It also held that, because the project continued during CIRP to keep the corporate debtor as a going concern, the sub-contractor's running bills formed part of CIRP costs rather than operational debt, and no claim in Form C was required. Interest on the withheld amount was confined to simple interest at 9% up to the date of the impugned order.
In a back-to-back construction contract, the NCLAT held that where the corporate debtor was entitled only to a 4% margin and had assigned the risks, liabilities and profit share to the sub-contractor, the remaining 96% of receivables from the principal employer belonged to the sub-contractor and was held in trust outside the liquidation estate under section 36(4)(a)(i). It also held that, because the project continued during CIRP to keep the corporate debtor as a going concern, the sub-contractor's running bills formed part of CIRP costs rather than operational debt, and no claim in Form C was required. Interest on the withheld amount was confined to simple interest at 9% up to the date of the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.