Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Successive applications under Section 65 cannot be used to reopen allegations of fraudulent or malicious initiation of insolvency proceedings once an earlier challenge has been rejected and the admission order has attained finality. The Tribunal treated the later application as a repetitive attempt to revive concluded issues, noting that mere repetition without fresh substantiating material could not sustain relief after findings on debt and default had become final. It also held that a litigant who falsely denied filing an earlier appeal and suppressed that dismissal failed to approach the Tribunal with clean hands, so the concealment itself justified denial of relief and adverse consequences, including costs.
Successive applications under Section 65 cannot be used to reopen allegations of fraudulent or malicious initiation of insolvency proceedings once an earlier challenge has been rejected and the admission order has attained finality. The Tribunal treated the later application as a repetitive attempt to revive concluded issues, noting that mere repetition without fresh substantiating material could not sustain relief after findings on debt and default had become final. It also held that a litigant who falsely denied filing an earlier appeal and suppressed that dismissal failed to approach the Tribunal with clean hands, so the concealment itself justified denial of relief and adverse consequences, including costs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.