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" ?
Insolvency and BankruptcyAugust 1, 2024Case LawsHC
Plaintiff contended defendants have no real prospect of successfully defending suit claim. Court held limitation issue raised by defendants requires further examination and cannot be decided in Interlocutory Application as plea cannot be held moonshine. First defendant defaulted on Rs.70,00,000 payment to plaintiff under Memorandum of Compromise. Cheque issued by first defendant got dishonoured. Plaintiff contends no necessity to withdraw suit per Memorandum since right to restore suit on breach. Defendants 2 to 4, being directors of first defendant company, not parties to contracts including construction contract and Memorandum of Compromise. Their liability can be adjudicated only after trial. First defendant made out probable case for defending suit on ground of limitation as amendment applications filed beyond three years from Memorandum date. Court directed first defendant to deposit Rs.70,00,000 within two weeks, failing which summary judgment for the amount in plaintiff's favour. Application against defendants 2 to 4 dismissed as suit claim against them to be adjudicated after trial.
Plaintiff contended defendants have no real prospect of successfully defending suit claim. Court held limitation issue raised by defendants requires further examination and cannot be decided in Interlocutory Application as plea cannot be held moonshine. First defendant defaulted on Rs.70,00,000 payment to plaintiff under Memorandum of Compromise. Cheque issued by first defendant got dishonoured. Plaintiff contends no necessity to withdraw suit per Memorandum since right to restore suit on breach. Defendants 2 to 4, being directors of first defendant company, not parties to contracts including construction contract and Memorandum of Compromise. Their liability can be adjudicated only after trial. First defendant made out probable case for defending suit on ground of limitation as amendment applications filed beyond three years from Memorandum date. Court directed first defendant to deposit Rs.70,00,000 within two weeks, failing which summary judgment for the amount in plaintiff's favour. Application against defendants 2 to 4 dismissed as suit claim against them to be adjudicated after trial.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
