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 AT held that civil courts and the tribunal lack jurisdiction to determine cultivation rights, which fall exclusively within the revenue courts' purview. The appellants had transferred cultivation rights via sub-leases to third parties, thereby forfeiting any right to repossess those rights. Additionally, as the appellants were not recorded owners in revenue records, they possessed no authority to evict the sub-lessees for alleged breaches under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956. Consequently, the appellants lacked locus standi to challenge the sub-lessees' rights. The appeals were dismissed on these grounds.
The AT held that civil courts and the tribunal lack jurisdiction to determine cultivation rights, which fall exclusively within the revenue courts' purview. The appellants had transferred cultivation rights via sub-leases to third parties, thereby forfeiting any right to repossess those rights. Additionally, as the appellants were not recorded owners in revenue records, they possessed no authority to evict the sub-lessees for alleged breaches under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956. Consequently, the appellants lacked locus standi to challenge the sub-lessees' rights. The appeals were dismissed on these grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
