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 dismissed the second SLP under Article 136 as not maintainable. The appellant, having earlier withdrawn a prior SLP with liberty to seek review before the HC under Article 226, could not re-agitate the parent order after the review failed; the Court applied the merger principle under Order XLVII r.7(1) CPC and held that rejection of a review affirms the original order and does not merge into a new decree. Entertaining a fresh SLP in such circumstances would subvert finality and amount to impermissible re-litigation. Public-policy considerations (interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium) were invoked. Preliminary objections by the respondent were upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
The SC dismissed the second SLP under Article 136 as not maintainable. The appellant, having earlier withdrawn a prior SLP with liberty to seek review before the HC under Article 226, could not re-agitate the parent order after the review failed; the Court applied the merger principle under Order XLVII r.7(1) CPC and held that rejection of a review affirms the original order and does not merge into a new decree. Entertaining a fresh SLP in such circumstances would subvert finality and amount to impermissible re-litigation. Public-policy considerations (interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium) were invoked. Preliminary objections by the respondent were upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
