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" ?
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.