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" ?
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.