Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Validity of Arbitral Award - Ordering the petitioner to repay advances for rejected testing kits with interest and legal costs - The court observed that the arbitrator had duly considered the claims and counterclaims, particularly focusing on the submissions related to the fitness and quality of the testing kits as well as the procedural aspects followed during the arbitration. - The court found no grounds of "patent illegality" or conflict with public policy in the arbitral award. It noted that the arbitral tribunal had adequately considered all relevant evidence and legal provisions, including the contested proviso to Section 16(1) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. - Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the arbitral award.
Validity of Arbitral Award - Ordering the petitioner to repay advances for rejected testing kits with interest and legal costs - The court observed that the arbitrator had duly considered the claims and counterclaims, particularly focusing on the submissions related to the fitness and quality of the testing kits as well as the procedural aspects followed during the arbitration. - The court found no grounds of "patent illegality" or conflict with public policy in the arbitral award. It noted that the arbitral tribunal had adequately considered all relevant evidence and legal provisions, including the contested proviso to Section 16(1) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. - Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the arbitral award.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
