Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The appellant's application seeking attachment of a flat in lieu of the mandatory pre-deposit u/s 43(5) of the RERA was dismissed. The court held that the appellant cannot claim benefit of the moratorium issued by the NCLT for an exemption from making the pre-deposit, as the insolvency resolution process pertains to a different project. The court upheld the requirement of pre-deposit as a precondition for hearing appeals under RERA, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, rejecting the appellant's offer of a flat as security. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The appellant's application seeking attachment of a flat in lieu of the mandatory pre-deposit u/s 43(5) of the RERA was dismissed. The court held that the appellant cannot claim benefit of the moratorium issued by the NCLT for an exemption from making the pre-deposit, as the insolvency resolution process pertains to a different project. The court upheld the requirement of pre-deposit as a precondition for hearing appeals under RERA, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, rejecting the appellant's offer of a flat as security. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.