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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
The HC dismissed the recall application challenging the disclaimer order passed in winding up proceedings under the Companies Act, 2013. The court held that the Company Court's powers are limited and do not extend to granting specific performance without a trial, especially where limitation has expired and no suit was filed. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was inapplicable due to lack of a subsisting enforceable contract and prior possession under a lease/license. The applicant, lacking locus standi as a contributory with no further interest, was barred by Order IX Rule 9 CPC from re-agitating dismissed claims. No material fact was suppressed to justify recall, and no jurisdictional error or ground for review was shown. The order disclaiming the onerous property burden was valid, and the property never vested in the company. Consequently, the recall application was rejected and the appeal dismissed.
The HC dismissed the recall application challenging the disclaimer order passed in winding up proceedings under the Companies Act, 2013. The court held that the Company Court's powers are limited and do not extend to granting specific performance without a trial, especially where limitation has expired and no suit was filed. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was inapplicable due to lack of a subsisting enforceable contract and prior possession under a lease/license. The applicant, lacking locus standi as a contributory with no further interest, was barred by Order IX Rule 9 CPC from re-agitating dismissed claims. No material fact was suppressed to justify recall, and no jurisdictional error or ground for review was shown. The order disclaiming the onerous property burden was valid, and the property never vested in the company. Consequently, the recall application was rejected and the appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
