Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
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 4823 
Join Channel 
