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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
The High Court considered the maintainability of a petition involving cheating, misappropriation of funds, and defrauding investors. The Court applied the Doctrine of Forum Conveniens and clarified that it can issue a writ under Article 226 when the cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of High Courts is limited to the State(s) they cover. The Court noted that the respondent's main office being in Delhi does not confer jurisdiction. It highlighted that the petitioner could seek relief from the Karnataka High Court, where the respondent has a Regional Office. The Court cited a Supreme Court decision to support its decision to dismiss the petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.
The High Court considered the maintainability of a petition involving cheating, misappropriation of funds, and defrauding investors. The Court applied the Doctrine of Forum Conveniens and clarified that it can issue a writ under Article 226 when the cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of High Courts is limited to the State(s) they cover. The Court noted that the respondent's main office being in Delhi does not confer jurisdiction. It highlighted that the petitioner could seek relief from the Karnataka High Court, where the respondent has a Regional Office. The Court cited a Supreme Court decision to support its decision to dismiss the petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
