Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Jurisdiction of civil court u/s 34 of SARFAESI Act was in question. Suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction was rejected by lower courts under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. For second appeal u/s 100 CPC, existence of substantial question of law is sine qua non. Section 100 mandates precise statement of substantial question of law and High Court to formulate the same. Entertaining appeal without framing substantial question would be illegal. Substantial question must emerge from sustainable findings of fact and be necessary for just decision. No new point can be raised unless it goes to root of matter. Section 34 bars civil court's jurisdiction over matters within DRT's purview and prohibits injunction against actions under SARFAESI Act. Mere use of word "fraud" without particulars as per Order 6 Rule 4 CPC cannot confer jurisdiction. Lower courts rightly rejected plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. No substantial question of law involved. Appeal dismissed.
Jurisdiction of civil court u/s 34 of SARFAESI Act was in question. Suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction was rejected by lower courts under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. For second appeal u/s 100 CPC, existence of substantial question of law is sine qua non. Section 100 mandates precise statement of substantial question of law and High Court to formulate the same. Entertaining appeal without framing substantial question would be illegal. Substantial question must emerge from sustainable findings of fact and be necessary for just decision. No new point can be raised unless it goes to root of matter. Section 34 bars civil court's jurisdiction over matters within DRT's purview and prohibits injunction against actions under SARFAESI Act. Mere use of word "fraud" without particulars as per Order 6 Rule 4 CPC cannot confer jurisdiction. Lower courts rightly rejected plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. No substantial question of law involved. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
