Allocation of registration charges: contractual clause overriding statutory presumption allowed as deduction against capital gain after unrebutted doc...
Expenditure tied to investments yielding exempt income restricted to attributable costs; broader disallowance disallowed and adjustments to WDV and mi...
Admissibility of Investigative Statements invalidated reliance on coerced emails and valuation redetermination, resulting in set aside of penalties an...
Classification of printed technical documents: specific Chapter 49.01 entry prevails, enabling claimed customs exemptions for imported manuals and rep...
The dominant issue is the scope of judicial review under Article...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional duties upheld
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The dominant issue is the scope of judicial review under Article 226: the Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction is supervisory not appellate, permitting interference only for decisions that are unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary or perverse; factual reappraisal is impermissible - challenge dismissed on this ground. On the substantive obligation of an insolvency professional, the Court held that statutory duties under Section 30(2), Section 29A, the Regulations and the Code of Conduct require active compliance, and ignorance of cancellation of an MSME certificate does not absolve responsibility - outcome: impugned findings upheld. Attempts to litigate factual merits not raised below and res judicata against a second show-cause notice were rejected; appeal dismissed. - HC
The dominant issue is the scope of judicial review under Article 226: the Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction is supervisory not appellate, permitting interference only for decisions that are unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary or perverse; factual reappraisal is impermissible - challenge dismissed on this ground. On the substantive obligation of an insolvency professional, the Court held that statutory duties under Section 30(2), Section 29A, the Regulations and the Code of Conduct require active compliance, and ignorance of cancellation of an MSME certificate does not absolve responsibility - outcome: impugned findings upheld. Attempts to litigate factual merits not raised below and res judicata against a second show-cause notice were rejected; appeal dismissed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
