Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
A supervisory challenge under Article 227 was maintainable despite an available appellate remedy before the NCLAT because the grievance was that the tribunal had acted without jurisdiction. The High Court held that an alternative remedy does not bar review where a tribunal is alleged to have exceeded its authority or committed a jurisdictional error, and it rejected the maintainability objection. On contempt jurisdiction, the Court held that the NCLT could only examine wilful disobedience of the earlier order and could not alter the substantive interim arrangement by directing completion of the sale process. That direction was set aside, while the sale certificate and consequential steps were left to abide by the outcome of the pending interlocutory application.
A supervisory challenge under Article 227 was maintainable despite an available appellate remedy before the NCLAT because the grievance was that the tribunal had acted without jurisdiction. The High Court held that an alternative remedy does not bar review where a tribunal is alleged to have exceeded its authority or committed a jurisdictional error, and it rejected the maintainability objection. On contempt jurisdiction, the Court held that the NCLT could only examine wilful disobedience of the earlier order and could not alter the substantive interim arrangement by directing completion of the sale process. That direction was set aside, while the sale certificate and consequential steps were left to abide by the outcome of the pending interlocutory application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.