Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Res judicata principle applies - Department of Expenditure (DOE) not an 'enterprise' u/s 2(h) of Competition Act, 2002 - Office Memorandum (OM) issued by DOE not an agreement u/s 3(4) and Section 3(1) of the Act. Supreme Court held DOE cannot be considered an enterprise regarding OM dated 24.03.2006. Appellant approached Respondent again with same facts, parties and prayer which was previously declined. Appellate Authority upheld earlier order, no further appeal filed. Legal maxim 'nemo debet lis vexari pro una et eadem causa' applies - no man should be vexed twice for same cause. Issues cannot be re-agitated as two courts already held DOE not an enterprise and OM not an agreement violating Section 3(4). Appeal dismissed.
Res judicata principle applies - Department of Expenditure (DOE) not an 'enterprise' u/s 2(h) of Competition Act, 2002 - Office Memorandum (OM) issued by DOE not an agreement u/s 3(4) and Section 3(1) of the Act. Supreme Court held DOE cannot be considered an enterprise regarding OM dated 24.03.2006. Appellant approached Respondent again with same facts, parties and prayer which was previously declined. Appellate Authority upheld earlier order, no further appeal filed. Legal maxim 'nemo debet lis vexari pro una et eadem causa' applies - no man should be vexed twice for same cause. Issues cannot be re-agitated as two courts already held DOE not an enterprise and OM not an agreement violating Section 3(4). Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
