Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
