Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
The HC dismissed the petition and upheld the trial court's order directing refund of the Rs.1,00,000 deposited under s.143A of the N.I. Act to the accused/appellant. The appellate court had set aside the conviction and compensation order, leaving no subsisting order against the accused; consequently the deposited amount cannot be retained or adjusted as interim compensation in a fresh complaint filed under s.142(1)(b) of the N.I. Act absent any interlocutory order granting such relief. The HC found no perversity or illegality in the trial court's reasoning and declined to interfere, affirming the accused's right to refund and dismissing the petition.
The HC dismissed the petition and upheld the trial court's order directing refund of the Rs.1,00,000 deposited under s.143A of the N.I. Act to the accused/appellant. The appellate court had set aside the conviction and compensation order, leaving no subsisting order against the accused; consequently the deposited amount cannot be retained or adjusted as interim compensation in a fresh complaint filed under s.142(1)(b) of the N.I. Act absent any interlocutory order granting such relief. The HC found no perversity or illegality in the trial court's reasoning and declined to interfere, affirming the accused's right to refund and dismissing the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.