Income-tax prosecution fails when appellate remand removes its factual foundation; directors require company arraignment for vicarious criminal liabil...
Capital character of assignment consideration prevents taxation as residuary income, while unsupported interest-related expenditure remains non-deduct...
Make-available condition shields regional support-service receipts from Indian taxation where no independent capability or permanent establishment exi...
Transfer-pricing treatment of corporate guarantees and convertible loans followed prior-year consistency, with taxable foreign dividends excluded from...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking confines adjustments to associated-enterprise transactions and integrates delayed receivables through TNMM working-capit...
Medical relief status protects government-contracted mobile healthcare from commercial classification, while provisional registration cancellation req...
Charitable registration cancellation requires proof that educational activities abandoned their objects; incidental receipts and retained surplus are ...
Fair opportunity to a non-party affected by insolvency proceedings requires consideration of its pending intervention application before final adjudication of the Section 7 company petition. The application under Section 60(5) alleged collusive initiation of insolvency proceedings and asserted potential effects on the applicant's rights and property. In the stated circumstances, judicial fairness required the Tribunal to determine that application first because no compelling urgency justified finalising the insolvency petition while it remained pending. The Tribunal was directed to decide the application within three months, if not already decided, and thereafter determine the insolvency petition on merits.
Fair opportunity to a non-party affected by insolvency proceedings requires consideration of its pending intervention application before final adjudication of the Section 7 company petition. The application under Section 60(5) alleged collusive initiation of insolvency proceedings and asserted potential effects on the applicant's rights and property. In the stated circumstances, judicial fairness required the Tribunal to determine that application first because no compelling urgency justified finalising the insolvency petition while it remained pending. The Tribunal was directed to decide the application within three months, if not already decided, and thereafter determine the insolvency petition on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4884 
