Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: Tribunal revisits loss-maker status, segmental comparability, working capital relief, and risk allocatio...
Business expenditure disallowance failed where commission, related-party salary and promotion payments were supported by records and inquiry was inade...
Impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was considered: applicant failed to show that the lis cannot be effectively decided in his absence, and submitted grounds lacked supporting documents or a distinct legally protectable interest directly affected by the narrow issue (alleged non-consideration of Section 65 in admission). The Resolution Professional had appeared, filed a response and is competent to represent the corporate debtor and obtain information from the suspended director under the insolvency code; consequently impleadment was rejected and the appeal will proceed without the applicant.
Impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was considered: applicant failed to show that the lis cannot be effectively decided in his absence, and submitted grounds lacked supporting documents or a distinct legally protectable interest directly affected by the narrow issue (alleged non-consideration of Section 65 in admission). The Resolution Professional had appeared, filed a response and is competent to represent the corporate debtor and obtain information from the suspended director under the insolvency code; consequently impleadment was rejected and the appeal will proceed without the applicant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
