Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.