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 HC upheld an interim injunction restraining appellants from alienating their shareholding in a company pending arbitration. The court emphasized its limited role in appeals under Section 37(2) of the A&C Act, particularly for discretionary interlocutory orders, following the principle of least intervention. While appellants argued the Share Purchase Agreement was a contingent contract incapable of enforcement, the court found this argument meritless as appellants themselves alleged breach by respondent to terminate the agreement. The AT's injunction was justified as respondent demonstrated readiness to perform the agreement, and the order was necessary to preserve the subject matter (shares) pending arbitration. Appeal dismissed as the AT's discretion was exercised properly.
The HC upheld an interim injunction restraining appellants from alienating their shareholding in a company pending arbitration. The court emphasized its limited role in appeals under Section 37(2) of the A&C Act, particularly for discretionary interlocutory orders, following the principle of least intervention. While appellants argued the Share Purchase Agreement was a contingent contract incapable of enforcement, the court found this argument meritless as appellants themselves alleged breach by respondent to terminate the agreement. The AT's injunction was justified as respondent demonstrated readiness to perform the agreement, and the order was necessary to preserve the subject matter (shares) pending arbitration. Appeal dismissed as the AT's discretion was exercised properly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
