Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Locus standi of the appellant to prefer the appeal, the applicability of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC, and the correctness of the High Court's order for de novo proceedings against the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the appellant has locus standi as the case involves serious allegations of interference with judicial processes. It ruled that the proceedings were not hit by the bar u/s 195(1)(b) CrPC as the initiation arose from a court order and not a private complaint. Regarding de novo proceedings, the Court stated that the High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings and ordering a fresh trial, as the alleged forgery of evidence leading to acquittal warranted further investigation. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Locus standi of the appellant to prefer the appeal, the applicability of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC, and the correctness of the High Court's order for de novo proceedings against the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the appellant has locus standi as the case involves serious allegations of interference with judicial processes. It ruled that the proceedings were not hit by the bar u/s 195(1)(b) CrPC as the initiation arose from a court order and not a private complaint. Regarding de novo proceedings, the Court stated that the High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings and ordering a fresh trial, as the alleged forgery of evidence leading to acquittal warranted further investigation. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
