Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Leave to appeal was unnecessary because the appellants had applied for intervention and were parties to the order rejecting those applications; the rule requiring strangers to obtain leave did not apply. Their appeals were therefore maintainable without leave. Intervention in the already disposed writ petitions was nevertheless unavailable: erstwhile directors showed only apprehensions, not a tangible subsisting right making them necessary or proper parties in proceedings concerning defreezing of company bank accounts. Pending disputes did not justify intervention or recall, and final disposal rendered the writ court functus officio, precluding further revisiting of the writ petitions. The intervention rejections and dismissal of the intra-court appeals were sustained, without barring appropriate independent remedies against the final writ order.
Leave to appeal was unnecessary because the appellants had applied for intervention and were parties to the order rejecting those applications; the rule requiring strangers to obtain leave did not apply. Their appeals were therefore maintainable without leave. Intervention in the already disposed writ petitions was nevertheless unavailable: erstwhile directors showed only apprehensions, not a tangible subsisting right making them necessary or proper parties in proceedings concerning defreezing of company bank accounts. Pending disputes did not justify intervention or recall, and final disposal rendered the writ court functus officio, precluding further revisiting of the writ petitions. The intervention rejections and dismissal of the intra-court appeals were sustained, without barring appropriate independent remedies against the final writ order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
