Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1001 to 1020 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Court held that the builder had forfeited its right to file a written statement, but its right to participate in the proceedings was protected. The rigour of the rule of pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure mandates that no pleading shall raise any new ground or contain allegations inconsistent with previous pleadings. The builder did not seek permission to cross-examine the witness or raise grievance of denial of such opportunity. The builder could be permitted only to argue legal questions, lapses, and non-admissibility of evidence. The Court found no error in the NCDRC's decision, as the builder could not bring forth anything admissible due to the forfeiture order. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the formula for payment of compensation for delay in handing over possession of flats, directing the developer to pay interest at 6% per annum from the due date till the date of offering possession.
The Court held that the builder had forfeited its right to file a written statement, but its right to participate in the proceedings was protected. The rigour of the rule of pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure mandates that no pleading shall raise any new ground or contain allegations inconsistent with previous pleadings. The builder did not seek permission to cross-examine the witness or raise grievance of denial of such opportunity. The builder could be permitted only to argue legal questions, lapses, and non-admissibility of evidence. The Court found no error in the NCDRC's decision, as the builder could not bring forth anything admissible due to the forfeiture order. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the formula for payment of compensation for delay in handing over possession of flats, directing the developer to pay interest at 6% per annum from the due date till the date of offering possession.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
