Charitable registration turns on predominant purpose and genuine activities, while incidental fees and related-party rent require supporting adverse m...
MAT book-profit adjustments exclude disallowances for exempt-income expenditure and demerger expenditure unless expressly listed under the statutory c...
Omitted specified domestic transaction provision invalidates related-party expenditure transfer-pricing references and assessments based on consequent...
Preventive suspension requires an immediate continuing threat and cannot become indefinite without inquiry, fresh evidence, or proportionate safeguard...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Rejection of bid - requirement of uploading annual turnover certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant for the last five financial years bearing UDIN of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) - The Court found that the stipulation for submitting a five-year annual turnover certificate with UDIN by Chartered Accountants was mandatory. The absence of UDIN was grounds for rejection, and this requirement was repeatedly emphasized in the tender documents. - The Court criticized the Technical Evaluation Committee's reconsideration favoring Respondent No. 5 as unfair, arbitrary, and biased. It noted that the Committee's reliance on documents not meeting the UDIN requirement was illegal and overlooked the mandatory nature of the tender conditions.
Rejection of bid - requirement of uploading annual turnover certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant for the last five financial years bearing UDIN of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) - The Court found that the stipulation for submitting a five-year annual turnover certificate with UDIN by Chartered Accountants was mandatory. The absence of UDIN was grounds for rejection, and this requirement was repeatedly emphasized in the tender documents. - The Court criticized the Technical Evaluation Committee's reconsideration favoring Respondent No. 5 as unfair, arbitrary, and biased. It noted that the Committee's reliance on documents not meeting the UDIN requirement was illegal and overlooked the mandatory nature of the tender conditions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.