Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
501 to 520 of 96363 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A fresh claim for possession of premises in liquidation was barred by res judicata and issue estoppel because the later application was virtually identical to the earlier rejected one and no liberty had been reserved to re-agitate it. On merits, the HC held that summary jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Companies Act is confined to whether the Official Liquidator has a relevant reason to remain in possession. As liquidation was continuing and the premises were still being used, continued retention was justified, and the applicant could not compel surrender of vested tenancy rights or conversion to a leave and licence arrangement. The application was dismissed with costs.
A fresh claim for possession of premises in liquidation was barred by res judicata and issue estoppel because the later application was virtually identical to the earlier rejected one and no liberty had been reserved to re-agitate it. On merits, the HC held that summary jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Companies Act is confined to whether the Official Liquidator has a relevant reason to remain in possession. As liquidation was continuing and the premises were still being used, continued retention was justified, and the applicant could not compel surrender of vested tenancy rights or conversion to a leave and licence arrangement. The application was dismissed with costs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
