Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The original appellant (now deceased) was represented by her son as her legal representative. The suit initially sought a permanent prohibitory injunction regarding a property, asserting her exclusive ownership and possession against the defendants, who are other family members. - Upon the death of the original appellant, her son sought to substitute himself as the appellant, claiming inheritance rights. - The Court noted the difference in scenarios where the plaintiff versus the defendant dies. While an injunction becomes moot if a defendant dies (since it cannot bind the heirs unless explicitly directed), the same does not apply when a plaintiff dies. - The High Court held that the cause of action for an injunction does not necessarily die with the plaintiff. If the legal heirs can establish a legitimate claim to the property, they may continue to seek injunctions to protect their possession.
The original appellant (now deceased) was represented by her son as her legal representative. The suit initially sought a permanent prohibitory injunction regarding a property, asserting her exclusive ownership and possession against the defendants, who are other family members. - Upon the death of the original appellant, her son sought to substitute himself as the appellant, claiming inheritance rights. - The Court noted the difference in scenarios where the plaintiff versus the defendant dies. While an injunction becomes moot if a defendant dies (since it cannot bind the heirs unless explicitly directed), the same does not apply when a plaintiff dies. - The High Court held that the cause of action for an injunction does not necessarily die with the plaintiff. If the legal heirs can establish a legitimate claim to the property, they may continue to seek injunctions to protect their possession.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.