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 ...
SC held that under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC and Section 165 of Evidence Act, the power to recall a witness is exclusively within the court's discretion. The court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to permit a party to recall a witness if circumstances warrant, but such recall is not an automatic right. Cross-examination of a recalled witness requires explicit court permission. The court's primary objective is to discover or obtain proper proof of relevant facts. The Special Leave Petitions were consequently dismissed, affirming the court's broad discretionary power in witness examination.
SC held that under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC and Section 165 of Evidence Act, the power to recall a witness is exclusively within the court's discretion. The court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to permit a party to recall a witness if circumstances warrant, but such recall is not an automatic right. Cross-examination of a recalled witness requires explicit court permission. The court's primary objective is to discover or obtain proper proof of relevant facts. The Special Leave Petitions were consequently dismissed, affirming the court's broad discretionary power in witness examination.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.