Retrospective invalidity of ocean-freight IGST supports refunds despite non-party status and prior credit utilisation, subject to authorised appeal gr...
Additional evidence in departmental appeals may include show-cause-notice material without introducing a new case where it merely corroborates existin...
Reasoned rectification orders require consideration of expenditure disclosed in income-tax returns, preventing revision based on incomplete income com...
Modified returns after business reorganisations cannot trigger fresh scrutiny once the original assessment was complete, invalidating related transfer...
Third-party loose sheets require reliable nexus before supporting unexplained expenditure additions; presumptions do not establish payer identity or o...
TNMM comparability using audited accounts and working-capital adjustments can eliminate unwarranted transfer-pricing additions where verified margins ...
Gross-profit additions on disputed purchases require reasoned appellate determination; disclosed claims alone do not support inaccurate-particulars pe...
Limitation after transfer-pricing remand: fresh TPO reference did not extend the assessment deadline, rendering the consequential assessment time-barr...
Page of 4913
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 98250 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Restoration of an insolvency application dismissed for non-prosecution can be supported by sufficient cause where former counsel deliberately failed to appear or enable substitution despite a continuing vakalatnama; that default should not be attributed to the litigant. Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules prescribes a 30-day restoration period but does not expressly prohibit a later recall request. Section 238A applies the Limitation Act, as far as may be, to insolvency proceedings, allowing Section 5 condonation on sufficient cause. Where the restoration request itself explains the delay, a separate condonation application is unnecessary, permitting merits consideration of the underlying claim.
Restoration of an insolvency application dismissed for non-prosecution can be supported by sufficient cause where former counsel deliberately failed to appear or enable substitution despite a continuing vakalatnama; that default should not be attributed to the litigant. Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules prescribes a 30-day restoration period but does not expressly prohibit a later recall request. Section 238A applies the Limitation Act, as far as may be, to insolvency proceedings, allowing Section 5 condonation on sufficient cause. Where the restoration request itself explains the delay, a separate condonation application is unnecessary, permitting merits consideration of the underlying claim.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4913 
