Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
Forfeiture of earnest money in an e-auction required fresh consideration under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act because the statutory requirements governing contractual forfeiture, including the necessity and quantum of loss, had not been raised or examined. The applicable e-auction terms also required determination of whether the forfeitable amount was 25% or 10% of the successful bid. The High Court set aside the rejection of the refund claim and remitted that issue to the Company Judge after completion of pleadings, leaving the merits of forfeiture open.
Forfeiture of earnest money in an e-auction required fresh consideration under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act because the statutory requirements governing contractual forfeiture, including the necessity and quantum of loss, had not been raised or examined. The applicable e-auction terms also required determination of whether the forfeitable amount was 25% or 10% of the successful bid. The High Court set aside the rejection of the refund claim and remitted that issue to the Company Judge after completion of pleadings, leaving the merits of forfeiture open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
