Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Costs cannot be imposed on a litigant for counsel's lapse where the record shows no lack of diligence by the litigant himself. The NCLAT applied the settled principle that a party should not suffer for the slackness or dereliction of the advocate representing him and found that the failure to press an application or properly marshal documents was attributable to counsel, not the appellant. It also noted that the impugned order did not disclose any basis for quantifying the costs. The costs direction was therefore set aside, while the appellant was required to participate diligently in the remaining proceedings and the main company petition was directed to be disposed of expeditiously.
Costs cannot be imposed on a litigant for counsel's lapse where the record shows no lack of diligence by the litigant himself. The NCLAT applied the settled principle that a party should not suffer for the slackness or dereliction of the advocate representing him and found that the failure to press an application or properly marshal documents was attributable to counsel, not the appellant. It also noted that the impugned order did not disclose any basis for quantifying the costs. The costs direction was therefore set aside, while the appellant was required to participate diligently in the remaining proceedings and the main company petition was directed to be disposed of expeditiously.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.