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" ?
The Court dismissed the defendants' applications seeking leave to defend the suit, as their defence was found to be frivolous, vexatious, and without any merit. The defendants admitted their liability to repay the amount claimed by the plaintiff but contended that the repayment was contingent upon an uncertain future event, solely at their discretion. The Court held that admitting liability while claiming non-repayment based on their inability to pay at their sole discretion is a moonshine defence. As the defendants failed to disclose any substantial or genuine defence, leave to defend was rightly refused under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of the CPC. The denial of leave is an exception when the defendant has practically no defence or raises only frivolous and vexatious issues without any semblance of triable issues.
The Court dismissed the defendants' applications seeking leave to defend the suit, as their defence was found to be frivolous, vexatious, and without any merit. The defendants admitted their liability to repay the amount claimed by the plaintiff but contended that the repayment was contingent upon an uncertain future event, solely at their discretion. The Court held that admitting liability while claiming non-repayment based on their inability to pay at their sole discretion is a moonshine defence. As the defendants failed to disclose any substantial or genuine defence, leave to defend was rightly refused under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of the CPC. The denial of leave is an exception when the defendant has practically no defence or raises only frivolous and vexatious issues without any semblance of triable issues.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
