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 SC allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order directing restoration of possession to the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent failed to establish a prima facie case of pre-existing tenancy rights, lacking convincing evidence such as rent receipts or bills predating the SARFAESI demand notice. Reliance on post-demand rent deposits and uncorroborated references to tenancy were insufficient. The 1st Respondent's delay in asserting tenancy rights and failure to approach the DRT timely undermined his claim. The High Court erred by ignoring these factors and ordering mandatory restoration without a compelling case. Consequently, possession remains with the Appellant, and status quo is maintained pending the securitization application's disposal.
The SC allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order directing restoration of possession to the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent failed to establish a prima facie case of pre-existing tenancy rights, lacking convincing evidence such as rent receipts or bills predating the SARFAESI demand notice. Reliance on post-demand rent deposits and uncorroborated references to tenancy were insufficient. The 1st Respondent's delay in asserting tenancy rights and failure to approach the DRT timely undermined his claim. The High Court erred by ignoring these factors and ordering mandatory restoration without a compelling case. Consequently, possession remains with the Appellant, and status quo is maintained pending the securitization application's disposal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
