Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Respondents made a concession before the Regulatory Authority to accept interest only on amounts paid after RERA implementation. However, before the Appellate Authority, they insisted no such concession was made. Instead of filing an application with the Regulatory Authority to correct the erroneous recording of the concession, Respondents filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal entertained the appeal without any pleading from Respondents regarding the erroneous recording of the concession. It erroneously concluded that no concession was made based on absence of certain points in the Regulatory Authority's order. The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the appeal without Respondents first seeking clarification from the Regulatory Authority regarding the concession. It also erred by entertaining an oral plea about non-concession without any pleading in the appeal memo. The Appellate Tribunal's order was set aside as indefensible.
Respondents made a concession before the Regulatory Authority to accept interest only on amounts paid after RERA implementation. However, before the Appellate Authority, they insisted no such concession was made. Instead of filing an application with the Regulatory Authority to correct the erroneous recording of the concession, Respondents filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal entertained the appeal without any pleading from Respondents regarding the erroneous recording of the concession. It erroneously concluded that no concession was made based on absence of certain points in the Regulatory Authority's order. The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the appeal without Respondents first seeking clarification from the Regulatory Authority regarding the concession. It also erred by entertaining an oral plea about non-concession without any pleading in the appeal memo. The Appellate Tribunal's order was set aside as indefensible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
