Belated Form 10B filing during Covid-19 cannot defeat charitable exemption where genuine hardship warrants condonation and substantial justice prevail...
Limitation for consequential assessments runs from prescribed authority receipt, while verified purchases cannot be disallowed merely for unanswered s...
Higher depreciation for qualifying commercial vehicles, exempt-income disallowance, research deduction verification, and club-expense treatment clarif...
Charitable registration renewal cannot become an assessment of receipts, profitability or annual exemption compliance, requiring renewal and donation ...
AMP expenditure for own business is not an international transaction without an associated-enterprise arrangement, eliminating transfer pricing adjust...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 35 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act binds not only the parties to an award but also persons claiming through or under them, so an award may be executed against non-signatories where their capacity or possession is derived from the award-debtor. Applying Cheran Properties and Cox and Kings, the HC found that the special purpose vehicle was created and controlled by the petitioners for their benefit, with its management, finances and operations entirely sourced from them; on those facts, the vehicle was inseparable from the petitioners for execution purposes. The executing court was therefore justified in proceeding against them under Section 35 read with Section 36 and Order XXI Rule 11 CPC, and the execution objections were rejected.
Section 35 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act binds not only the parties to an award but also persons claiming through or under them, so an award may be executed against non-signatories where their capacity or possession is derived from the award-debtor. Applying Cheran Properties and Cox and Kings, the HC found that the special purpose vehicle was created and controlled by the petitioners for their benefit, with its management, finances and operations entirely sourced from them; on those facts, the vehicle was inseparable from the petitioners for execution purposes. The executing court was therefore justified in proceeding against them under Section 35 read with Section 36 and Order XXI Rule 11 CPC, and the execution objections were rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
