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 Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismissed the application to recall its judgment, holding that recall is permissible only on limited inherent-jurisdiction grounds (fraud, court-mislead, lack of jurisdiction, non-joinder/service of a necessary party, or a court-made mistake prejudicing a party). The Tribunal found no such ground: the appellant's representations were recorded, no factual error existed in the impugned order, and there was no allegation of fraud, collusion or jurisdictional defect. The absence of the appellant at the adjudicating authority's hearing did not satisfy recall criteria. The application was effectively a prohibited review in disguise; the appellant had an adequate remedy by appeal. Consequently, the recall application was dismissed.
The Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismissed the application to recall its judgment, holding that recall is permissible only on limited inherent-jurisdiction grounds (fraud, court-mislead, lack of jurisdiction, non-joinder/service of a necessary party, or a court-made mistake prejudicing a party). The Tribunal found no such ground: the appellant's representations were recorded, no factual error existed in the impugned order, and there was no allegation of fraud, collusion or jurisdictional defect. The absence of the appellant at the adjudicating authority's hearing did not satisfy recall criteria. The application was effectively a prohibited review in disguise; the appellant had an adequate remedy by appeal. Consequently, the recall application was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.