Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Data transmission equipment classification under CTSH 8517 62 remains distinct from residual classification, with exemption evidence requiring scrutin...
Seeking waiving off the payment of Court fees - economic hardship or other significant reasons - Refiling the Compensation Application against the order of the Competition Commission of India - The NCLAT found no such hardship or reason was presented that justified waiving the fee, despite the appellant's claim of being misled by their previous representative. - The NCLAT distinguished these cases from the present situation, noting that in those cases, the legal representatives' absence or default led to the proceedings' outcomes. In contrast, in the current case, the representative was present and actively participated, even though he was not authorized to practice law. Thus, the rationale of not penalizing the party for the representative's fault did not apply here as the representative's actions were not mere defaults or absences but involved active, albeit unauthorized, participation.
Seeking waiving off the payment of Court fees - economic hardship or other significant reasons - Refiling the Compensation Application against the order of the Competition Commission of India - The NCLAT found no such hardship or reason was presented that justified waiving the fee, despite the appellant's claim of being misled by their previous representative. - The NCLAT distinguished these cases from the present situation, noting that in those cases, the legal representatives' absence or default led to the proceedings' outcomes. In contrast, in the current case, the representative was present and actively participated, even though he was not authorized to practice law. Thus, the rationale of not penalizing the party for the representative's fault did not apply here as the representative's actions were not mere defaults or absences but involved active, albeit unauthorized, participation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
