Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
NCLAT considered company appeals challenging an order dismissing contempt proceedings arising from an interlocutory order passed under the I&B Code. The Appellate Tribunal held that, under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, an appeal lies only from an order or decision of a High Court "to punish for contempt," i.e., an order imposing punishment under Section 12, and not from a mere dismissal of a contempt petition. As the impugned order only rejected the contempt petition without awarding any punishment, it did not qualify as an appealable order under Section 19. NCLAT further noted that the I&B Code does not incorporate the Contempt of Courts Act by reference. Consequently, the company appeals filed by the anonymized appellants against dismissal of contempt were held not maintainable and were dismissed.
NCLAT considered company appeals challenging an order dismissing contempt proceedings arising from an interlocutory order passed under the I&B Code. The Appellate Tribunal held that, under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, an appeal lies only from an order or decision of a High Court "to punish for contempt," i.e., an order imposing punishment under Section 12, and not from a mere dismissal of a contempt petition. As the impugned order only rejected the contempt petition without awarding any punishment, it did not qualify as an appealable order under Section 19. NCLAT further noted that the I&B Code does not incorporate the Contempt of Courts Act by reference. Consequently, the company appeals filed by the anonymized appellants against dismissal of contempt were held not maintainable and were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
