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" ?
This petition sought to restrain the bank from taking physical possession of two immovable properties. The court held that the petitioner grossly violated undertakings dated 21st September 2022 and 2nd June 2023. Despite being served a demand notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, the petitioner failed to point out any illegality in the bank's actions but succeeded in preventing the bank from taking possession by making representations before DRT and HC regarding intention to clear dues. However, the petitioner failed to avail the extension granted by the court and bank. The prayer for extension was satisfied by orders dated 13th September 2022 and 25th May 2023, but the petitioner failed to make payments within the extended time. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to restraining the bank, and the petition is dismissed.
This petition sought to restrain the bank from taking physical possession of two immovable properties. The court held that the petitioner grossly violated undertakings dated 21st September 2022 and 2nd June 2023. Despite being served a demand notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, the petitioner failed to point out any illegality in the bank's actions but succeeded in preventing the bank from taking possession by making representations before DRT and HC regarding intention to clear dues. However, the petitioner failed to avail the extension granted by the court and bank. The prayer for extension was satisfied by orders dated 13th September 2022 and 25th May 2023, but the petitioner failed to make payments within the extended time. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to restraining the bank, and the petition is dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
