Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the Petitioner challenging Clause 7 of the SEBI Circular on the grounds that the Petitioner was abusing the court's extraordinary jurisdiction. The court found that the Petitioner had initially withdrawn its request for arbitration and later sought to revive it, despite lacking funds to comply with the IGRC's directions. The court held that the Petitioner's objective appeared to be to frustrate the claimants' attempts to secure amounts based on the IGRC order. The court declined to address the issue of the constitutionality or reasonableness of the impugned clause, as any decision on this issue at the behest of such a Petitioner might foreclose a serious challenge by a genuine party. The petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on the Petitioner.
The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the Petitioner challenging Clause 7 of the SEBI Circular on the grounds that the Petitioner was abusing the court's extraordinary jurisdiction. The court found that the Petitioner had initially withdrawn its request for arbitration and later sought to revive it, despite lacking funds to comply with the IGRC's directions. The court held that the Petitioner's objective appeared to be to frustrate the claimants' attempts to secure amounts based on the IGRC order. The court declined to address the issue of the constitutionality or reasonableness of the impugned clause, as any decision on this issue at the behest of such a Petitioner might foreclose a serious challenge by a genuine party. The petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on the Petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
