Marketing support and subcontracted client contracts: no agency permanent establishment under Article 5 DTAA; arm's-length pricing bars profit attribu...
The dominant issue was whether the adjudicating authority could decide an interlocutory application on merits despite a pre-pronouncement request to withdraw it. The tribunal accepted the counsel's affidavit and subsequent praecipe as credible evidence that withdrawal was sought, and held that the reliefs originally claimed were in any event overly wide and general. Consequently, deciding the application on merits despite the withdrawal request was unjustified; the impugned order dismissing the application was set aside, with liberty to file a fresh interlocutory application seeking appropriately framed reliefs for consideration in accordance with law, and the appeal was disposed of - NCLAT
The dominant issue was whether the adjudicating authority could decide an interlocutory application on merits despite a pre-pronouncement request to withdraw it. The tribunal accepted the counsel's affidavit and subsequent praecipe as credible evidence that withdrawal was sought, and held that the reliefs originally claimed were in any event overly wide and general. Consequently, deciding the application on merits despite the withdrawal request was unjustified; the impugned order dismissing the application was set aside, with liberty to file a fresh interlocutory application seeking appropriately framed reliefs for consideration in accordance with law, and the appeal was disposed of - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
