Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Interim stay applications over admission of an electricity distribution licensee into CIRP turned on the asserted primacy of the Insolvency Code over the Electricity Act and the alleged invalidity of a corporate guarantee for want of regulatory approval. One Member held that existing Supreme Court authority foreclosed the Electricity Act objection and that a disputed approval issue did not by itself make the guarantee fraudulent, coercive, or void, so no stay was warranted. The other Member distinguished that authority, stressing the effect of CIRP on the licensed business and consumers and preferring the less injurious course. With this difference of opinion, the Bench made no final determination on interim relief and referred the matter.
Interim stay applications over admission of an electricity distribution licensee into CIRP turned on the asserted primacy of the Insolvency Code over the Electricity Act and the alleged invalidity of a corporate guarantee for want of regulatory approval. One Member held that existing Supreme Court authority foreclosed the Electricity Act objection and that a disputed approval issue did not by itself make the guarantee fraudulent, coercive, or void, so no stay was warranted. The other Member distinguished that authority, stressing the effect of CIRP on the licensed business and consumers and preferring the less injurious course. With this difference of opinion, the Bench made no final determination on interim relief and referred the matter.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.